The Human Adoption Gap: Why AI and Omnichannel Strategies Fail in Pharma

Mar 16

Pharma is investing heavily in AI and omnichannel transformation. But despite the strategy, tools, and intent, outcomes remain inconsistent. The issue isn’t ambition, it’s adoption.

Over the past few years, I’ve found myself in a number of conversations where the ambition was clear.

AI strategies were being defined.
Omnichannel transformation programmes were underway.
Significant investment had already been committed.

On paper, everything made sense. The strategy was coherent. The tools were credible. The direction felt right. However, a few months later, the same questions would start to surface.

Why aren’t we seeing the impact we expected?
Why are teams still working the same way?
Why do our pilots show promise, but fail to scale?

Not because the strategy was wrong. And not because the technology didn’t work. But because something in between hadn’t been addressed.

The pattern that keeps repeating

Early on, there’s always momentum. New tools are introduced, teams are trained and use cases are identified. There’s energy around the change, and a sense that progress is being made. But then reality starts to reassert itself.

People fall back on familiar workflows, but not out of resistance, but because it’s faster and safer. New capabilities are used selectively rather than systematically. Decisions continue to be made in the same way they always have been, even if the inputs have changed.

Nothing breaks. There’s no obvious failure point.

But over time, a gap begins to open up between what the organisation intends to do, and what actually happens day to day. It’s subtle at first. Easy to dismiss. But persistent enough that outcomes never quite match expectations.

Where transformation actually breaks down

We tend to frame transformation as a combination of strategy, technology, and capability.

Define the right direction.
Deploy the right tools.
Train people to use them.

But in practice, that’s not where things succeed or fail. The real point of failure sits somewhere less visible. It’s between the tools that are implemented and the behaviours required to use them effectively. This is what I would describe as the Human Adoption Gap.

The gap between strategic ambition, AI, omnichannel, digital transformation and the ability of an organisation’s people, behaviours, and operating model to actually deliver it.

It shows up in familiar ways. Tools are technically available, but not meaningfully embedded in day-to-day work, training is completed, but doesn’t translate into changed behaviour and omnichannel strategies exist, but execution remains fragmented and channel-led.

For example: a brand team defines an omnichannel strategy built around coordinated HCP engagement across email, rep visits, and digital platforms. On paper, the journey is clear. But in practice:

the email team continues to optimise open and click rates
field teams are still measured on call volume
digital activity is planned separately

Another common example: is the rollout of AI tools to support content creation. Teams are given access to generate HCP emails, slide decks, or campaign assets more quickly.

The capability is there and the training is delivered.

But in reality:

some teams use it regularly
others avoid it due to uncertainty around quality or compliance
many revert to agencies or existing processes under time pressure

The tool exists, but it hasn’t changed how work actually gets done.

Each channel performs, but they don’t connect, so the organisation delivers more touch-points, but not a more coherent experience.

From the outside, it looks like progress, but internally, it often feels like friction and over time, that friction compounds.

Why AI and omnichannel make this more visible

There’s an assumption that more advanced tools and better strategy will close the gap. In reality, they tend to expose it.

AI raises the ceiling of what’s possible, but also raises the expectations of how people need to work. Without a corresponding shift in behaviour, the gap between potential and reality becomes more obvious.

Omnichannel does something similar. It relies on coordination, across teams, channels and decisions. But most organisations are still structured and incentivised in ways that reinforce silos rather than integration.

Individually, each is manageable. Together, they introduce a level of complexity that most organisations aren’t set up to absorb. What was once hidden becomes visible. What was once tolerable becomes expensive.

Why the gap persists

When you look closely, the issue is rarely a lack of effort or intent. It’s usually a set of misalignments that, individually, don’t seem critical, but collectively make adoption fragile.

People are trained, but not supported in applying new approaches in real situations and teams are asked to work differently, but are still measured in the same way. Structures and processes lag behind the strategy, creating friction rather than enabling change. Leadership communicates transformation, but doesn’t always reinforce it through day-to-day decisions.

For example: You see this clearly with “next best action” tools for field teams. These are designed to guide reps towards more relevant, data-driven interactions with HCPs.

But in practice:

reps are still under pressure to hit call targets
recommendations aren’t always trusted or understood
managers don’t consistently reinforce their use

So reps default to familiar approaches despite the tool being available and the strategy being clear because the behaviours required to make it effective haven’t been designed or embedded.

None of this is dramatic and there’s no single moment in time where things fail. But over time, these small inconsistencies add up to a consistent outcome: adoption doesn’t stick.

A different way to think about transformation

Most organisations spend the majority of their time and energy on defining strategy and deploying tools. However, far less attention is given to what actually determines success, whether people adopt new ways of working in a sustained, meaningful way.

If you map it simply:

Strategy leads to tools.
But tools only create value if they change behaviour.
Behaviour is what ultimately drives outcomes.

The problem is that most transformation efforts stop too early. They optimise for implementation, not adoption and that’s where the gap opens.

Closing the gap

Closing the Human Adoption Gap isn’t about doing more. It’s about focusing on the right thing. Not just what is being implemented, but how it is actually used.

That means designing for behaviour, not just capability. Aligning incentives with the outcomes we want to see. Evolving operating models so they support new ways of working, rather than quietly resisting them. Ensuring leadership behaviour reinforces the change, not just the narrative around it.

This is less visible work. It’s harder to package, harder to measure in the short term, and often less immediately tangible than deploying a new tool or launching a new initiative. But it’s where transformation either becomes real or quietly fails.

Closing thought

There is no shortage of ambition in pharma right now. AI strategies are advancing and omnichannel models are evolving. But ambition isn’t the constraint. The constraint is whether organisations can translate that ambition into consistent, real-world behaviour. Until that gap is addressed directly, investment will continue to outpace impact.

If you’re investing in AI or omnichannel but seeing uneven or limited impact, the issue is often not the strategy itself, but how it’s being adopted and executed.

That’s the work Human Arc focuses on: helping organisations close the gap between ambition and reality.

Benjamin Tilly