The essentials
- A pharmaceutical company with research teams, manufacturing sites and quality, regulatory and supply functions, across more than one country.
- Programme work the line does not see.
- Multi-manager reviews are the centre of it.
In a pharmaceutical company the line manager is often the person who sees the least of someone's work. A scientist spends the year on two programmes led by somebody else. A quality specialist supports three sites. This is how one pharmaceutical company runs performance review in New Dynamics.
The company has asked us not to name it. We publish a customer's name, and the numbers behind a story, only once they have approved both in writing.
The organisation
A pharmaceutical company with research teams, manufacturing sites and quality, regulatory and supply functions, across more than one country. Scientists and engineers sit in functional lines and work on cross-functional programmes. Site teams run shifts. Quality staff support work they do not own.
Before New Dynamics the review ran on forms and email. Project leads were consulted informally, which meant their view depended on who remembered to ask.
What the process had to handle
Programme work the line does not see. A functional manager assesses depth and development. A programme lead sees delivery, judgement under pressure and how someone handles a result that kills a hypothesis. Both are needed.
Objectives longer than a year. Research does not resolve neatly in twelve months. An objective has to survive a change of direction without becoming either meaningless or a failure.
Site teams on shifts. The person with the most useful view of a manufacturing technician is a shift supervisor, not the manager who owns the review form.
Training and qualification records that must stay where they are. Role qualification, controlled training records and anything with its own sign off remain in the systems built for them. The review refers to them.
The process they run
Multi-manager reviews are the centre of it. Programme leads, site supervisors and functional managers each contribute a defined part, and each view stays attributed, so a disagreement between a programme lead and a line manager reaches the conversation instead of being averaged away.
Goals and OKRs hold objectives that run across programme milestones rather than calendar years, and are revised when a result changes the plan, with the reason recorded.
Continuous feedback captures the specific moment: a deviation handled well, a technical transfer that went cleanly, an audit response written clearly. A few lines at the time are worth more than a paragraph in December.
Workflows carry different stages and forms for research, site and functional populations on one calendar, with reminders in place of chasing.
Org charts hold the functional line and the programme relationships together, so the right contributors are invited automatically.
Recognition makes the supporting contribution visible, which in this organisation is usually quality and supply work that only becomes noticeable when it fails.
The cycle through the year
Start of the year. Functional objectives and programme commitments agreed together, with the split of someone's time stated rather than assumed.
Through the year. Feedback recorded at milestones, after deviations and at the end of a campaign, by whoever was there.
Mid-year. A check against both sets of objectives. Reviewers updated where someone has moved programme.
Year end. Each contributor completes their part. The functional manager builds the assessment with every view in front of them.
After the conversation. Development actions become goals, including the next qualification or the next site rotation, planned in the review and recorded in the system that owns it.
What is measured
- Completion by function, site and stage.
- The proportion of reviews carrying programme or supervisor input, which is the test of whether the matrix is represented or just described in a policy.
- Preparation time for managers, which is what decides whether the process holds in a busy quarter.
Frequently asked questions
How do you review someone whose work is mostly on other people's programmes?
Give the programme leads a defined contribution to the review and collect it routinely rather than informally. Keep each view attributed so the functional manager can discuss differences instead of resolving them silently.
What happens to objectives when a programme changes direction?
Revise them and record why. In research the reason a goal changed is often the most informative evidence of the year, and a changed objective is not a failed one.
Does this hold our training and qualification records?
No. Controlled training, role qualification and anything requiring formal sign off stays in the system built for it. The review refers to those records and plans the next step.
How do site teams on shifts take part?
Shift supervisors record short feedback close to the work, and the formal conversation is scheduled around the shift pattern. The supervisor's view reaches the review whether or not they are in the room for it.
Talk to us about your matrix
Bring your current review form and a description of how programmes and functions share people. We will work through how the cycle would run.
Turn the guidance into your next conversation.
Choose one action from this story, agree who owns it and set a date to review what changed. To explore how your process could work in New Dynamics, bring your current workflow to a demonstration.
