Case Study

From Fragmented Product Execution to a Coherent Portfolio Rhythm

Engagement Focus: Strategy Execution & Results

Sector: Life Sciences

Context

A global pharmaceutical organization was scaling a portfolio of digital health products intended to improve clinical workflows and decision-making in oncology care. While the broader enterprise pursued continued growth, this specific division was responsible for commercializing multiple software products simultaneously, each at a different stage of maturity.

The environment was highly matrixed, with strong functional capabilities and significant ambition. The engagement focused on the digital products organization and was anchored with the executive leader responsible for the portfolio and his leadership team.

The Challenge

Execution relied heavily on individual teams managing their own priorities. Progress was difficult to assess holistically, dependencies were surfaced late, and leadership visibility into outcomes was limited.

Execution challenges did not stem from a lack of talent or delivery capability. Product teams were capable, motivated, and producing high-quality solutions.

The difficulty lay in coordination and focus:

  • Too many possible directions and initiatives competed for attention

  • Product discussions centered on features and releases rather than intended outcomes

  • Goals were siloed across complementary products

  • Prioritization approaches varied by team and function

  • Visibility of objectives across the portfolio was limited

  • Product goals and business goals drifted apart

As a result, activity was high, but coherence across the portfolio was weak.

Execution does not fail because teams lack effort. It fails when priorities, cadence, and accountability are unclear.

The Strategic Shift

Vivid Strategies supported the organization in embedding a strategy execution rhythm built around clear objectives, outcomes, and regular review.

The execution approach was reset around a small number of shared, outcome-oriented priorities.

Key moves included:

  • Positioning OKRs explicitly as a strategic priority definition and execution mechanism, not as a strategy formulation tool

  • Establishing a quarterly OKR-based execution rhythm, integrated with existing product and business cadences

  • Defining portfolio-level priorities first, creating a common directional anchor

  • Enabling product teams to define aligned OKRs within that shared frame

  • Making objectives fully transparent across the product portfolio

  • Using OKRs as a primary input into portfolio prioritization and decision-making

  • Clarifying ownership across objectives and supporting initiatives

OKRs were used as part of a broader execution system, not as a standalone framework. Leadership cadence, priority reviews, and retrospectives were designed to create transparency, learning, and accountability across teams.

The focus was not acceleration for its own sake, but sustained execution quality.

What Changed

Several observable shifts followed:

  • Leadership conversations moved from features and outputs to objectives and intended outcomes

  • Meetings became decision- and action-oriented rather than status-driven

  • The quality of portfolio-level dialogue improved materially

  • Annual and quarterly planning became more focused and effective

  • A unified approach to prioritization emerged across teams

  • Visibility across products increased, enabling coordination and learning

Execution became more consistent and more coherent across the portfolio.

Role and Approach

Vivid Strategies acted as the designer of the execution approach, trainer, and hands-on partner to the product leadership team. The focus throughout was on enabling internal leaders to sustain the execution rhythm independently over time.

This type of engagement is relevant for organizations with complex portfolios where strategy is defined, but execution lacks focus, transparency, or learning loops.