Where pharmaceutical workforce complexity meets HCM that handles it.

UKG Pro is where most of our domestic pharma implementation depth sits. For multi-country payroll, we work across the platform landscape pharma actually runs on — the ADP global suite (Workforce Now, Celergo, GlobalView, Streamline) and UKG One View as primary platforms, plus EOR and global payroll providers (Deel, Alight, TMF Group, Northgate Arinso) when client architecture calls for them. Pharma buyers tend to evaluate platforms against operational complexity, not feature lists, and our portfolio reflects that. Our advisory work stays platform-agnostic. Our implementation work goes platform-deep.

We design multi-country payroll architectures at the country layer, not as a global template with country exceptions bolted on. Each country runs its own local reality cleanly — labor law, statutory benefits, currency, payroll cycles, reporting cadences, year-end requirements — and global consolidation pulls audit-clean data without after-the-fact reconciliation. Global mobility integrates at the same layer: expatriate compensation, tax equalization, hypothetical tax calculations, and secondment structures all flow through configurations that survive the moment when assignments extend or change shape mid-cycle. The architecture handles operational reality, not idealized global standards that don't survive contact with local labor law.

We work big pharma and specialty pharma, with the deepest portfolio in big pharma — that's where multi-country complexity, R&D workforce scale, commercial sales force structures, and the full regulatory landscape converge in one organization. Specialty pharma carries different complexity profiles: typically narrower geographic footprint, milestone-heavy compensation around single-product or pipeline-focused R&D, and tighter commercial models. Biotech carries similar dynamics to specialty pharma at smaller scale — milestone-heavy R&D compensation, pipeline-focused workforces, and the operational realities of pre-commercial or early-commercial organizations. Engagement shape adjusts to what the workforce actually needs, not to a template assumption about pharma scale.

Vendor professional services teams are good at getting the platform stood up. They're not always set up to handle pharma's specific complexity — multi-country payroll architectures, milestone-driven compensation structures, clinical trial labor allocation, and the regulatory reporting that has to flow from payroll rather than parallel to it. We work alongside the vendor's professional services team when the engagement structure calls for it, and we work in their place when the client wants pharma-specific depth on the implementation team. Either way, we own the configurations that have to keep working through the next product launch, the next country expansion, and the next regulatory framework update.

Transparency reporting works correctly when it flows from the system that ran the underlying transactions, not from a parallel compliance system reconciling back to it. We design HCM and payroll configurations where transfers of value between the manufacturer and healthcare professionals — employment-related payments, consulting arrangements, research support, advisory board honoraria — are tagged at the source, with the data that supports federal Open Payments submissions and state-level reporting requirements (Vermont, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and others) generated from the configuration that ran the work. State and federal frameworks compound rather than substitute, and we configure for both layers from the start.

Audit-readiness in clinical trial labor isn't a separate deliverable. It's what you get when labor allocation, time tracking, and sponsor reporting are configured correctly to begin with. We design HCM configurations that allocate labor at the trial layer, track time against trial-specific cost objectives, and produce sponsor-ready reporting that ties back to the workforce structure that ran the trial. When sponsor audits, internal QA reviews, or regulatory inspections request labor allocation documentation, the system produces it from the configuration that ran the work — not from a parallel time tracking system that has to be reconciled afterward.

Commercial incentive compensation (IC) plans in pharma rarely sit still. Product launches add quota carve-outs. Indication expansions reshape territory assignments. Competitive dynamics drive contest cycles, SPIFFs, and clawback provisions. Plan transitions often run multiple plan versions live simultaneously across a transition period, with reps' actual payouts touching multiple plans for the same selling period. We design IC engines that handle multi-plan complexity, portfolio-spanning quota structures, and payout reconciliation across plan versions — without forcing the commercial reality into a generic sales comp template that breaks at the next product launch or therapy area expansion.