The problem: a plan that capacity was not following
On paper, the operating rhythm looked disciplined. Quarterly plans were set, roadmaps published, ceremonies held, and the work carried real weight: products and capabilities with implications for affiliates, commercial teams, and ultimately patients. Underneath that structure, the execution data told a different story.
Only about 20% of planned quarterly work was getting completed. The reason was not effort or talent. Only about 20% of the team's capacity was going to the plan in the first place. The remaining 80% was absorbed by work that never appeared in any plan: stakeholder requests, urgent escalations, pressure from affiliates in the field, and reactive demands that arrived faster than a roadmap could absorb them.
A second problem sat underneath the first. Even a perfectly executed plan can be the wrong plan. The team's strategic goals lived in a deck of more than 50 pages, disconnected from the systems where work happened. Some goals were not being measured at all. Others could not yet be measured cleanly. Leadership faced two unknowns at once: whether the team was executing the plan, and whether the plan deserved the execution.
What we did: one view of strategy, work, and capacity
Iteright started with execution reality rather than the strategy deck. We analyzed the team's work across 10,000 Jira tickets and mapped where effort was actually going, team by team, against the funded plan. The gap stopped being a suspicion argued about in meetings and became a number leadership could see.
Then we configured Iteright as the team's operating system. Strategy, opportunities, execution activity, resources, and impact measurement were connected in one live view, so a decision made in a planning meeting stayed visible all the way down to the tickets doing the work, and back up to the outcomes that work was supposed to produce.
How we did it: better bets, honestly measured
Execution focus alone would only have made the team better at executing the wrong plan faster. So the opportunity process changed too. Signal from affiliates in the field, the people closest to customers and adoption barriers, was structured into opportunity evaluation alongside business goals, engineering feasibility, and expected commercial impact. Before a bet absorbed major capacity, it had to be validated, aligned to strategy, modeled for impact, and de-risked.
The goals themselves came out of the deck and into the system. Each strategic goal was articulated with its key impact metrics and connected to the work meant to move it. Where a metric could not yet be measured cleanly, the system said so. The team worked from a measurement maturity view: what can be measured now, what is projected, what needs a manual update, and what has to mature next. Honest numbers, improving on a visible path.
The outcome: 93% of work on the funded plan
Within one quarter, work aligned to the funded plan rose from 20% to 93%. On roughly $50M of annual digital investment, a swing of that size represents a potential $35M of capacity redirected from scattered, reactive work toward the initiatives leadership had actually chosen. The point is not newfound profit. The point is that an investment the company was already making started going where the company had decided it should go.
Just as valuable was the story leadership could now tell with confidence: what we are betting on, why we chose it, how much effort is going there, how execution is tracking, what impact we expect, and what we can measure today. Those are the questions every product leader in a complex organization has to answer. This team answers them from one view.