A Case Study on the Vigilance Project

1809 Words8 Pages
I. Background of the Case Headquartered in France, PharMed International is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. It was established two years ago when two formidable pharmaceutical companies, ValMed and PharmCO, combined. Although officially termed a merger, in practice, it might better have been described as an acquisition of ValMed, a Swiss-based company with extensive U.S. operations, by PharmCO, a French-based company. Like all pharmaceutical companies, PharMed is obligated to keep detailed records of how its drugs perform. To do so, PharMed relies on sophisticated database systems that track and record adverse events associated with the use of its products under development and already in the market. The Drug Safety…show more content…
Looking back, however, there was no opportunity to really get past formalities. It would have been good for the core team to have also met separately for more in-depth discussions about how we would work together. None of that ever happened.” After the initial meeting, most of the core team’s subsequent interactions were conducted via weekly teleconferences. These teleconferences were frequently cancelled by Didier Amrani, the project manager, without notice and without him having sought input from the rest of the team as to whether there were issues they wanted to discuss. Communication across subteams was a key point the American members of the core team wanted to stress to their French colleagues. From their work on Perspective they had learned how important it was to keep people informed of what other subteams were doing. “System development is dynamic,” explained Carol Reynolds. “We had learned how quickly any two subteams could head down different paths if the communication and coordination was not as dynamic as the work itself.” She went on to stress that too frequently, the result would be one or both teams having to rework their design—creating time delays that rippled throughout the project schedule and leading to bad feelings within the team. The subteams continued to fall behind schedule, but the delivery date remained firm. The timeline slippages were obvious, but almost
Open Document