CX in Pharma: Roles, Skills and Leadership Rythms

A Strategic Conversation on Making CX Real Inside the Business

Insights from industry practitioners on role clarity, capability building, and measurable outcomes in pharmaceutical customer experience

Executive Summary

In pharmaceutical organizations today, Customer Experience (CX) sits at a critical intersection—strategic on paper, yet often unclear in practice. This webinar brought together three seasoned practitioners to address the fundamental challenges that continue to plague CX implementation: blurred ownership, evolving skill requirements, and the persistent question of how to translate strategic intent into operational reality.

Key Finding: After five years of CX evolution in pharma, the greatest challenge isn't technology adoption—it's organizational clarity. Success depends not on sophisticated tools, but on clearly defined roles, measurable accountability, and cross-functional operating rhythms that align marketing, medical, sales, and data functions around shared patient impact.

As organizations invest more in CX capabilities, the overlap with adjacent functions has actually increased. Yet this overlap isn't inherently problematic—it signals multiple stakeholders committed to patient outcomes. The differentiator lies in how organizations channel this energy through clear design, disciplined execution, and continuous dialogue.

Workshop Framework: Three Pillars of CX Clarity

Opening Context: The CX Reality in Pharma

Manvi, Executive Advisor, LYC Partners

"Good afternoon, and thank you for joining our conversation on customer experience in pharma. I'm Manvi, founder of consulting practice and advisory expert with LYC Partners, where I work alongside pharmaceutical leadership teams helping them design roles, clarify decision rights, and turn strategy into execution across US and Asia Pacific markets.

Today's topic is particularly close to all of us because it continues to evolve despite years of discussion. We're addressing something fundamental: CX sits at a pivotal intersection of marketing, sales, medical, analytics, and business intelligence—all functions that are well-defined individually. But the overlap has grown, and while job descriptions read strategically, ownership and decision rights often remain blurred.

Over the next 45 minutes, we'll get specific about roles and skill sets relevant for 2026, explore what teams should build internally versus buy from outside, and examine practical examples with measurable outcomes. Joining me are two practitioners with rare depth across multiple organizations."

Part I: The Ownership Challenge

Defining the Common Gaps

Manvi: "Let's begin with a fundamental question for our panelists. According to you, what is the most common ownership gap you see in CX today? And critically—which KPI finally made the role real in your business? Please keep answers to 60 seconds."

The Content-Channel Friction

Andres, Regional APAC Lead for Customer Engagement & Capabilities, Novo Nordisk

"The most common gap I see is friction between content strategy and channel orchestration. This stems from how pharma was historically structured—marketing teams owned creation of one piece of big content distributed across the field or major events.

Now we're asking them to collaborate with multiple stakeholders and disseminate that content in seamless experiences across different channels. That means creating many different content pieces that integrate well together across different delivery stakeholders.

So the ownership question becomes: who should lead this conversation? Traditionally, marketing teams owned a well-crafted message as one deliverable. But now other functions are orchestrating across channels. Who's in charge?

Another major gap: customer data insights. Who owns those insights—the business intelligence team, the CDP team? Who's actioning them? Marketing isn't always working with those communication channels or models, and the data teams tend to be too technical.

These groups don't communicate well because they have different activity metrics. Some talk about open rates, webinar attendance, page views, bounce rates. Others discuss traditional marketing KPIs. The way you harmonize this is by moving from activity metrics to business metrics meaningful for both sides—easier said than done."

The Organization-Wide Responsibility

Sushil, CX Director for GSK Greater China & Intercontinental Region

"I love how Andres framed this, and I'll add another dimension. Let's step outside pharma for a moment. My experience as an Apple user—my experience is shaped by UX, how specs work, unboxing smoothness, aesthetics, advertising. Experience isn't one person's domain.

We're talking about a healthcare product that touches R&D, supply chain, production, marketing, sales, and medical. Who actually owns it? The whole organization owns it. But those of us with CX titles need to be the connectors ensuring all these experiences come together.

Regarding tangibility: this is why I joined this industry—whatever we do should result in patient impact. It's nice to talk about engagement and open rates, but what matters is: is this a good experience? And critically—is that experience resulting in patient impact? That's what should matter for anyone in healthcare."

Part II: The Decision Rights Imperative

Making CX Real Through Clear Accountability

Manvi: "If there was one decision you would explicitly assign to CX teams to reduce cross-functional friction, what would it be?"

The RACI Framework for CX

Sushil's Strategic Framework:

"I'd start with clear RACI because when everyone owns something, you need explicit definitions of who does what. My favorite framework follows this chain:

1. Insights → Meaningful insights lead to great strategy

2. Strategy → Great strategy enables great execution

3. Execution → Great execution delivers good KPIs

4. KPIs → Which form the loop back to insights

Someone must clearly define who owns:

• Providing insights: Timely, meaningful insights

• Developing strategies: Based on those insightful decisions

• Executing: Do we have capabilities for right execution in right places?

• Measurement: Feeding back into insights and strategy

CX should play an active role in defining this RACI. But there's an implicit role I believe CX must own: leading the digital transformation of the organization. While everyone has a role, CX as a function needs to lead this part."

The Orchestration Mandate

Andres' Industry Comparison:

"The concept of customer experience in pharma—we're not early adopters. We're adopting a philosophy proven successful in other industries and seeing how it fits ours.

Look at other industries. Who orchestrates customer experience? Take Uber Eats—they orchestrate the entire experience of someone ordering food. They're not making the food. They're not deciding menus. They're not doing delivery. They're orchestrating multiple functions to ensure seamless experience while putting skin in the game. I'm using the Uber Eats app, not the restaurant's app.

My decision would be: put customer experience at the center of orchestration. Marketing creates great content. Digital marketing enables amazing experiences across emails, webinars, portals, messaging. Insights teams work the data and virtual cycles. But CX should own the orchestration.

Is that possible? That's the question. When you look at job descriptions for these roles, they're loaded with strategic functions—transform the organization, do the orchestration. But they're expected to do it from the side, asking the tail to wag the dog. We want business unit leaders to keep ownership and leadership while sharing orchestration responsibility across new business models—that's difficult.

My decision: empower this function more."

Part III: The Evolution Challenge

Why Confusion Persists After Five Years

Manvi: "It's been over five years since we started refining CX definitions. Why does confusion still exist between CX and adjacent function goals?"

The Technology Acceleration Problem

Sushil's Perspective:

"I don't think there's a simple answer because we're literally changing the moving car parts. The technology is improving, but we don't get a year to stop everything and rebuild from scratch.

Everything's happening incrementally. However, technology isn't incremental—for the first time in humanity, we're facing disruptive jumps in technology. I believe some players are doing this because they feel they'll lose the race without it. But do we have clarity? Enough capabilities? Proper infrastructure?

Think about 10-20 years ago with greenwashing—every company wanted recycling logos without realizing what it meant. Half were fraudulent; half did it from competitive pressure. Today some do CX the same way.

It summarizes to the point we made earlier: As an organization, do we have clarity on what we want to achieve, how we want to achieve it, and who owns it? Once that's sorted, then cross-functionally, CX can play an orchestrator role so things don't turn into cacophony but become a well-synced orchestra."

The VUCA Environment Factor

Andres' Analysis:

"One factor is uncertainty—the VUCA environment we live in. Technology isn't moving as slowly as it used to. Every month there's a new version of ChatGPT, Gemini, or newer tech, constantly challenging us with 'what now?' As a human race, we're struggling to cope with the pace for the first time."

Part IV: AI's Impact on Role Clarity

The Double-Edged Sword

Manvi: "Has AI forced us to take a sharper look at what parts remain human versus machine-driven? With AI capabilities in play, has the overlap increased or decreased?"

Mixed Views on AI Clarity

Andres' Cautious Perspective:

"I have mixed views. There's some clarity, but not a lot. We're trying to execute as we transform—technology, processes, new ways of working, and people.

From the people side, there are big gaps. The tendency with new ways of working and technologies is to outsource them—bring talented people from outside who know AI rather than upskilling existing functions. Your senior leader says, 'I read about AI in media, let's bring someone clever to do AI.' But what is this person doing differently that enables AI? That's the question mark.

I have mixed feelings because everyone's jumping into the hype. Marketing wants AI for fast content creation. BI people want AI for better predictive models. Everyone wants to own it and innovate around it.

In purity, it should bring clarity. AI use cases around data should sit in IT or BI. Content use cases should sit in brand teams or medical. Orchestration and decision-making use cases should sit in customer experience. But let's see—it's very similar to CRM conversations. CRM is customer relationship management, but it ended up being someone who manages software. We have the same dynamic here—big promise, let's see how we execute."

AI as Clarity Accelerator

Sushil's Dual View:

"The overlap has increased, but it's also become clearer. Both seem contradictory, but look—I've been in the industry 24 years. Duplication always existed. Efforts were always done by everybody. AI is just putting it under the lens and telling you: 'Hey guys, there's something you need to sort out.' That's why it's become sharper and visible.

But overlap has increased because:

• Traditional analytics → now involves people who own data lakes, Python programmers

• Digital marketing → was fancy career choice for marketeers doing websites, now cutting-edge work

But clarity is emerging. It's settling into zones:

• CX defines the experience architecture

• AI defines signal detection and data insights

• Commercial defines business objective guardrails (segment, business objective, patient objective)

• Medical defines patient safety and efficacy guardrails

AI hasn't replaced much—it's replaced manual orchestration with more contextual data. However, judgment must remain human. If you believe AI will do everything, that's a bad day for our industry."

Part V: The 2026 Skillset

Non-Negotiable Capabilities for Tomorrow

Manvi: "If you're onboarding people to your team in 2026, what are the non-negotiable skills? Consider data literacy, cross-functional fluency—the must-haves across the spectrum."

The Cross-Functional Fluency Imperative

Andres' Hiring Criteria:

"It naturally follows from our conversation: cross-functional fluency is most important and most difficult to find.

People who are:

• Clever enough to move the needle

• Humble enough to collaborate effectively with other functions

• Driven and shine enough so people follow them even without direct authority

• Collaborative enough to do it without creating friction

That's difficult to find. Matrix organizations have existed, but they're increasingly complex because interconnections across customer or patient journeys are much more intricate.

Second non-negotiable: data interpretation—not Python programming, not Power BI dashboards, not advanced statistics (except for specialists), but really interpreting data.

The pharmaceutical model used to be easy once you were trained—look at sales, NBRx, source of business, market share growth, some activity KPIs. Outside the industry it looked like sorcery; inside it was straightforward. But now we have richer databases—patient data points, webinar interactions (not just attendance but downloads, engagement). You need to interpret that to ask people to take action.

Those are the two: cross-functional fluency and data interpretation ability—complex data frameworks, data sense."

The Foundational Human Skills

Sushil's Core Capabilities:

"This is a conversation I have even with my 15-year-old child: what should we train them for? Technology moves so fast, we don't know what jobs will exist—not in 10 years, even in a couple of years.

When hiring, we're not thinking only about the next three months but the long run. Basic skills remain at the core:

1. Data storytelling: Can you look at data and tell a logical story—what does it mean, and what should I do with this data? The 'so what' part.

2. Cross-functional teamwork: More functions are getting involved—some we don't even know. Campaign development now includes 'decision AI' joining calls, data scientists joining. Do we know how to deal with these people?

3. Empathy: Must-have in every industry, more so in pharma. That compliance person saying 'don't' isn't my enemy—they're safeguarding the organization. I don't want to over-promise to patients or HCPs and endanger patient safety.

I'd say that empathy, the human core of what integrity should mean, is really important. In every interview, we look for these core qualities—they're non-negotiable. Rest can be trainable."

Part VI: The Single Success Metric

Ending the Ownership Debate

Manvi: "If you could name one single metric to tie to the CX role to end the ownership debate, what would it be? Just one metric—60 seconds."

Sushil: "Patient impact. Period."

Andres: "I'd stick to what Sushil said. At the end of the day, it's the mandate of us in the pharmaceutical industry."

Part VII: Build, Buy, or Borrow Strategy

Strategic Capability Decisions

Manvi: "Everyone's competing for similar skillsets. How do you decide what to build internally, what to buy, and what to borrow from outside?"

The Strategic Importance Framework

Andres' Decision Matrix:

"I think about it in terms of strategic importance and long-term need.

Build (Core competitive advantage):

• Journey design

• Channel orchestration

• Customer data analytics

These are our secret sauce—fundamental to build internally.

Buy (Standard platforms): Technology platforms where providers know better than we ever will—portals with great UX, email automation, etc.

Borrow (Specialized expertise): Very important short-term needs but not forever. Clever consultants for specific challenges. For example, I need someone who owns data and can build logical chains between results and activities—that's core. But if I need a specific predictive model requiring Python or R programming or very specific data expertise—I need that model, but I cannot do it internally. I'll borrow that pocket of brilliance via partners."

The Organizational Context Approach

Sushil's Framework:

"Various dimensions go into every organization's decision. Something you want as proprietary competitive advantage—build it yourself. Something repeatable over years—look at doing it faster, cheaper, which is where external partners come in.

Areas like reach frequencies—where you want to reach more than current capacity—look at partners with databases or extended reach.

There's probably not one single way. In English, there's a saying: 'horses for courses.' You need the right horse for racing, right horse for cart, right pony for baby training. It depends on the situation.

External partners can be viewed in different ways:

1. Cost efficiency: Help save costs to offer benefits to patients

2. Cutting-edge capabilities: Bring something that enhances offerings

These are two philosophies. Organizations can have one, two, or a mixture depending on therapy, area, etc."

Part VIII: Capability Development in Practice

Personal Upskilling Commitments

Manvi: "Could you share one capability in which your organization—or you personally—have upskilled considering today's environment?"

Staying Competitive Through Learning

Sushil's Personal Journey:

"I'll be honest—it came from my own insecurity to stay competitive. After so many years, I knew my competition might not be people with similar work experience, but somebody who understands AI better.

Three and a half years ago, I did my post-graduation in AI and ML. That gives me confidence now to talk about these topics and understand them rather than struggling or trying to look intelligent when I have no clue.

Not very proud to say it came from insecurity, but it was one of the best decisions I took. I recommend to anybody and everybody: we have to keep learning. What I learned 25 years ago in microbiology books or Philip Kotler in marketing may not be relevant anymore. The world has changed, so we need to as well."

Organizational Capability Expansion

Andres' Evolution:

"I'd say a couple of things. First, phenomenal upskilling on patient awareness work because of the nature of products we work with. It's much more complex than traditional HCP engagement.

From past consulting life with banking and tech companies—they've mastered consumer engagement. Patient isn't a consumer, but behavior is definitely more complex than HCPs we've worked with for decades. That's one area where our organization made gigantic advances in a year.

In parallel, we've increased digital marketing skills. Our internal reports show we're best-in-class in in-person engagement. But our HCP base expanded so much, we had to master digital engagement with HCPs too. We're on the journey, but the change has been significant."

Part IX: Real-World Impact Cases

Measurable Outcomes from Role Design

Manvi: "Before we conclude, please share practical examples or cases where changes in role design led to measurable outcomes. Include where you started, what you achieved, and quantifiable results or learnings."

The Framework for Success Measurement

Sushil's KPI Framework:

"I'll talk about framework I love using. Today is the era of agentic AI—content multipliers and tools the industry is adapting to. Organizations are upskilling into these areas. But how do you look at success?

Over the years, I love this KPI framework with three pillars:

1. Operational Success:

• How many people attended courses?

• How many passed tests?

• For mandatory online programs, what were completion rates?

• For classroom sessions, what was captive time?

• Percentage of people who attended

2. Behavioral Success: What happens after training modules are delivered?

• How many people started using these tools in the next quarter?

• What are usage adoption rates across different businesses?

• How many questions are coming?

• How many improvements are suggested by users?

This gives confidence people are thinking about it and engaged.

3. Business Impact: Typically mid- to long-term horizon—what is the business impact? If it's not giving business impact, it was probably just a nice tick-mark activity that everybody felt they did.

I thought this framework might be useful for the audience."

The Transformation Journey

Andres' Practical Learning:

"I've been for several years trying to enable new ways of working—overall transformation around customer intimacy, omni-channel engagement, orchestration.

My initial approach was very consulting and rational: Let me own and know what needs to be done, upskill people, then they'll do it. In practical terms: if you want enhanced customer experience, build cross-functional teams, do joint brand planning with more voices (data, omni-channel, digital), plan for the year, integrate with business planning cadence, and results will come.

My main learning: this doesn't work. Too much friction, confusion about ownership, people trying to set boundaries or take the lead.

What works: make it happen day-to-day. Much more valuable to have weekly or bi-weekly meetings where this team joins to discuss how one small initiative is going, polish it, make it work iteratively, agile, fast, changing, natural—rather than trying to ingrain new ways of working through traditional business frameworks.

My key takeaway: If you want change, make it small, make it day-to-day, make it tangible, and let everyone work around it. It will operate the magic over time."

Part X: Q&A — Practical Applications

Managing Cross-Functional Overlap

Participant Question: "In order to provide the best CX, there are usually overlaps across functions. How does your company help the team manage or walk through this?"

High-Performing Teams Over Job Descriptions

Andres' Response:

"The traditional approach says: go to HR, draft very crisp job descriptions, then it will happen. It doesn't work that way.

What I've seen working: build high-performing teams instead of individuals with clear job descriptions, and pieces naturally come to their place. Marketing guys end up doing what job descriptions theoretically said. BI person does their thing. But since they have shared purpose, they work as a team and want to do it together. They make it work instead of first defining it very well, then everyone going with their piece of paper saying 'my responsibility is this, yours is that.' That doesn't work."

Overlap as Opportunity, Not Problem

Sushil's Collaborative Framework:

"Overlap is not a problem for me. Overlap gives me two positive signals:

1. Two people are interested in doing something good for the organization

2. There's overlap in their thinking

When you have overlap, it's either an area of conflict or area of collaboration. It depends on you as a leader which way you look at it. Obviously, go towards collaboration.

How? I'd say CX doesn't necessarily remove overlap—these overlaps exist for a reason. My recommendation: look at the design of campaigns and work streams. If you just say 'let's do the campaign,' obviously marketing, medical, regulatory, compliance, PR will all say 'this is my area.'

The devil lies in the details. The deeper you go, the more defined your roles become. Therefore:

First D: Design is really important

Second D: Discipline — clear RACI helps know single point of accountability

Third D: Dialogue — even without clarity, good close-knit teams have people talk to each other, align on common purpose (patient impact), then work towards it

I'd say many leaders do the same thing. Let's retrain our mind: overlap is not a problem—it's an opportunity."

The Outside-In Perspective

Andres' Addition:

"If I may add—we started this conversation talking about CX being a look at the outside. In consulting, the external part is always obvious. You need to deliver for your customer, and everyone works together with shared purpose.

These discussions of conflict with overlap occur but are less frequent because of that common purpose outside. Whenever I face situations of conflict with overlap, it's always thinking about what we want to achieve—that outside look instead of the bureaucratic multinational view about roles, responsibilities, and accountability.

Look at the outside: what are we doing this for?"

About LYC Partners

LYC Partners is an executive search and advisory firm helping pharmaceutical organizations build high-performing teams and strengthen leadership operating systems across APAC. We work alongside regional and country leaders to clarify roles, align decision rights, and install operating rhythms that turn CX strategy into execution reality.

For support with CX role design, capability development, or strategic talent acquisition, connect with the speakers through LYC Partners. Complete webinar recordings and additional frameworks are available to participants.

This article is based on a live webinar conversation and represents the personal perspectives of the speakers, not their respective employers. No specific brands or promotional content are endorsed.