Clinical Trial Supply Chains Need To Prepare For A Less Predictable World

By Laura Hay, senior director of global program management, Trax Group | 2025 Winner, everywoman Customer/Passenger (Leader) Award

Clinical trial supply chains have spent years becoming more efficient. Companies have worked to reduce excess inventory, streamline distribution networks, consolidate suppliers, and make planning more predictable. Those efforts have delivered real value, but the world those supply chains operate in is becoming much less predictable.

Between geopolitical uncertainty, shifting trade policies, transportation disruptions, supplier constraints, and the growing complexity of clinical therapies, there are more variables affecting clinical supply than there were even a few years ago. A supply strategy that looks efficient on paper can become a vulnerability when one part of the network is suddenly disrupted.

That is why I believe the conversation around clinical supply needs to move beyond efficiency alone. We need to start thinking much more seriously about resilience.

Resilience does not mean preparing for every possible disruption or simply holding more inventory. In fact, carrying additional inventory without understanding the underlying risk can create its own problems, particularly when products have limited shelf lives. The better approach is understanding where a supply chain is most exposed and making deliberate decisions about where flexibility is needed.

For example, a clinical trial may depend heavily on a single supplier for a critical component or have manufacturing concentrated in one geographic region. There may be only one transportation route capable of meeting the product's requirements, or inventory may be positioned in a way that works under normal circumstances but leaves very few options if demand changes.

A resilience assessment might lead a team to hold additional inventory at a particular location, qualify an alternate supplier, split manufacturing across regions, or build more time into a transportation plan. The right choice depends on the specific risk and the cost of maintaining that flexibility.

Those risks are not always obvious when each part of the supply chain is considered separately. They become much clearer when organizations look at the network as a whole.

This is one reason visibility has become such an important part of clinical supply strategy. But visibility by itself is not resilience. Knowing that a shipment is delayed is helpful, but it is far more valuable to understand what that delay means for the trial and what options are available before the situation becomes critical.

For example, a delayed shipment may require a team to reallocate inventory between depots, prioritize certain sites, expedite another shipment, or accept a temporary change in inventory coverage. The right response depends on what the delay means for patient supply, not simply how long the shipment is late.

That requires better connections between data, people, and decision-making. Enrollment information, inventory levels, manufacturing schedules, and logistics performance all tell part of the story. When those pieces are viewed together, supply teams have a much better opportunity to identify where a plan is beginning to move away from expectations.

Technology, particularly AI and predictive analytics, can help with this. We are getting better at identifying patterns and recognizing potential risks earlier. But I don't think technology should be viewed as the solution on its own. The technology is only useful if the organization has the processes and expertise in place to act on what it is telling us.

Scenario planning is another area where I think clinical supply organizations can become more proactive. Instead of planning around one expected outcome, teams can ask what happens if enrollment accelerates, if a manufacturing milestone slips, if a supplier becomes unavailable, or if a protocol amendment changes demand. The goal isn't to predict exactly what will happen. It is to understand how the network responds when the assumptions behind the original plan change. That can help teams determine in advance which inventory thresholds should trigger action, when an alternate supplier needs to be activated, or when manufacturing and distribution plans need to be adjusted.

That distinction matters.

Clinical trials rarely follow the original plan perfectly. Enrollment can move faster or slower than expected. Sites can activate at different rates. Protocol changes can affect demand. Manufacturing schedules can shift. Transportation conditions can change with little notice. A supply chain designed around a single set of assumptions is going to struggle when those assumptions change.

Supplier relationships also become increasingly important in this environment. A resilient supply chain depends on more than contracts and service-level agreements. Organizations need to understand how their partners will respond when circumstances change. Can capacity be increased? Is there an alternative manufacturing location? Can a logistics provider support a different route? How quickly can information move between the organizations involved?

These are questions that are much easier to answer before a disruption than during one.

I also think we need to reconsider what we mean when we talk about efficiency. For a long time, efficiency has often meant reducing inventory, minimizing cost, and eliminating anything that looks unnecessary. Those goals still matter, but there is a point at which removing every bit of flexibility makes a network more fragile. The question is not whether to carry more inventory or add more suppliers in every situation. It is deciding where the cost of flexibility is justified by the consequences of losing it.

The strongest supply chains are not necessarily the ones carrying the least inventory or operating with the fewest suppliers. They are the ones that understand where flexibility has real value and build it into the network intentionally.

Clinical supply is ultimately about supporting patients and keeping trials moving. That means we cannot design supply strategies that work only when everything goes according to plan. The environment is too complex for that.

The goal should be to build supply chains that are efficient in normal conditions but capable of adapting when those conditions change. That may require a different way of looking at inventory, suppliers, technology, and risk, but I believe that balance between efficiency and resilience is where the future of clinical supply is heading.

About The Author:

Laura Hay is senior director of global program management at Trax Group and the 2025 winner of the everywoman Customer/Passenger (Leader) Award. With extensive experience in clinical supply chain and program management, Laura focuses on helping organizations navigate complex global supply environments, improve operational visibility, and build more resilient approaches to clinical trial supply. Her expertise spans clinical supply planning, forecasting, inventory agility, global logistics, and the evolving challenges facing life sciences organizations.