Three ways to trust a vendor… and the risk you accept with each
by: Paul DavidsonPublished on: 31/03/2026Most vendor oversight strategies look robust on paper, but far fewer stand up to scrutiny when you examine when key decisions are actually made. This article explores the three common ways organisations build trust in their vendors, from pre-qualification audits to early in-study oversight, and challenges the assumption that these are simply operational choices. Instead, each approach reflects a different level of risk acceptance, often shaped more by timing, pressure, and internal dynamics than by deliberate design. Drawing on patterns seen across preclinical, clinical, and CSV environments, the piece questions whether audits are truly informing decisions or merely responding to them, and invites readers to reconsider how and when confidence in a vendor is really established.
Different functions, same mistake: a decision gap across GLP, GCP, and CSV
by: Paul DavidsonPublished on: 31/03/2026Across preclinical, clinical, and CSV environments, the same pattern repeats: vendors are often chosen before the real decision is openly discussed, leaving audits to confirm rather than influence the outcome. This article explores how that decision gap shows up in different forms depending on where you sit, from mid-study audits in preclinical work to overlooked laboratory risk in clinical trials and late-stage vendor qualification in CSV. Rather than focusing on process failures, it reframes the issue as a gap in how and when decisions are made, and offers simple ways to recognise and shift this dynamic in practice. The aim is not to add complexity, but to help organisations regain control of the moment where risk is truly decided.
