I recently read Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment.
While the book explores decision-making across many industries, I found myself thinking about something I've observed repeatedly in clinical development: the same vendor can receive dramatically different evaluations from different stakeholders.
The authors call this phenomenon noise—unwanted variability in judgment.
We all know how often it appears in vendor selection.
The Same Vendor, Different Conclusions
Most vendor selection processes follow a familiar path. An RFP is issued, proposals are reviewed, bid defenses are conducted, and stakeholders complete evaluations.
The process is structured; The information is shared; Yet it is not unusual for one stakeholder to rank a vendor first while another ranks the same vendor near the bottom of the list.
Both attended the same presentations; Both reviewed the same proposal; Both received the same answers.
So why do the results vary so significantly?
Different Lenses, Different Outcomes
Part of the answer is that stakeholders naturally evaluate vendors through different lenses.
Clinical Operations may focus on execution and delivery. Procurement may focus on commercial terms and value. Quality may focus on compliance and inspection readiness.
Data Management may focus on systems, integrations, and data flow.
Each perspective is valid and important. The challenge is that these perspectives can lead stakeholders to weigh the same information very differently. As a result, the final evaluation may be influenced as much by who is evaluating the vendor as by the vendor itself.
Beyond Budgets and Resource Models
Most teams can compare budgets, assumptions, and staffing plans. The harder challenge is comparing strategy.
How do you objectively compare two different enrollment approaches?
Two different risk mitigation plans? Two different operating models? Two different approaches to site engagement?
These are often the factors that influence the final decision, yet they are also the most difficult to evaluate consistently.
One stakeholder may view a proposed strategy as innovative. Another may view the same strategy as risky. One may see flexibility. Another may see a lack of process.
Neither perspective is necessarily wrong. But variability begins to enter the evaluation process.
Where Noise Shows Up
In my experience, noise often appears in the qualitative portions of an evaluation. A vendor's understanding of the indication. The strength of their proposed strategy.
The credibility of the team presenting at bid defense. Their approach to risk management.
Their ability to function as a true partner. These factors matter. In many cases, they matter more than the budget. Yet they are also more difficult to evaluate consistently than a resource model or a line-item cost comparison.
Why This Matters
Vendor selection decisions often influence study execution for years. The vendors selected today may affect timelines, enrollment performance, quality outcomes, budgets, inspection readiness, and ultimately the success of a clinical program.
Given the significance of these decisions, it is worth asking a simple question:
How much variability exists within our own evaluation process?
If different stakeholders consistently reach different conclusions from the same information, are we evaluating vendors consistently?
Or are we measuring the differences between evaluators?
A Thought Worth Considering
One of the key lessons I took away from Noise is that expertise alone does not guarantee consistency.
Clinical development will always require judgment. Nor should we try to remove judgment from the process.
The goal is not to eliminate human expertise. The goal is to apply it more consistently. Because when vendor decisions can influence a study for years, reducing noise may be just as important as reducing bias.
The challenge, of course, is not eliminating judgment—it's creating a process that applies judgment more consistently. That's a topic I've spent a great deal of time thinking about, both as a clinical operations leader and now as the founder of Clin.AI.
What We Do at Clin.AI
At Clin.AI, we help sponsors select and manage their vendors more effectively — making it easier to keep studies on track, within budget, and delivered on time. If you’d like to strengthen your vendor oversight and gain real-time visibility into the progress of your trials, give us a call. We’d be happy to walk you through how we can support your goals.
If that resonates with you, we’d love to show you how Clin.AI works. 👉 Visit Our Page
About the Author Kalyan Obalampalli (KO) is the Founder and President of Clin.AI, a disruptive start-up transforming how biotech and pharma sponsors select and manage vendors. With more than 20 years of leadership experience in clinical operations and outsourcing at major pharma and biotech companies, KO brings a unique perspective on how technology can close long-standing gaps in clinical development.
