Pharma's Digital Push Hinges on Culture, Not Just Code

A conversation between two pharmaceutical technology executives is drawing attention to a persistent industry tension: pharmaceutical companies are under pressure to modernize operations through digital tools, yet the sector's tolerance for disruption remains near zero. The exchange, part of a podcast series produced by quality-software provider Caliber Technologies to mark its 25th anniversary, features Dhwani Dholakia, Head of IT at Otsuka Pharmaceutical India, in dialogue with Caliber's VP of Quality, Phanikar Bhaskara.

Rethinking Digital Transformation in Regulated Industries

Dholakia's central argument is that digital transformation in pharmaceutical operations is less about deploying artificial intelligence or new software than about shifting how people think and work. In an industry where supply chain stability and patient safety cannot be compromised, he contends that technology must be introduced in ways that reinforce existing quality processes rather than override them.

That framing matters beyond Otsuka. Pharmaceutical manufacturers globally have spent years navigating pressure to adopt Industry 4.0 tools while satisfying regulators such as the US FDA, the UK's MHRA, and the World Health Organization. Systems like laboratory information management and electronic document platforms promise efficiency gains, but they also introduce new points of failure if staff are not prepared to work within them.

Dholakia also traces his own approach to leadership back to his exposure to Japanese work culture during his time at Otsuka, a Japan-headquartered pharmaceutical company. He describes moving from an introverted professional style toward one built around discipline, long-term planning, and process discipline — traits he links directly to how technology projects are managed inside the organization.

Vendor Relationships as a Trust Exercise

A notable portion of the discussion centers on how Otsuka approached its partnership with Caliber Technologies during the rollout of laboratory information management and document management systems. Dholakia uses an unusual comparison, suggesting technology vendors ought to function more like patient guides than transactional suppliers, walking customers through implementation challenges rather than simply delivering software and departing.

That framing reflects a broader shift in how regulated industries are approaching digital vendors generally. As health-related technology projects extend into areas such as remote monitoring — a trend visible in efforts to bring AI-enabled care into patients' homes — the success of these deployments increasingly depends on sustained collaboration rather than one-off installation, particularly where data integrity and inspection readiness are non-negotiable.

Dholakia further attributes his professional resilience to interests outside the pharmaceutical sector, citing sports and the teachings of badminton coach Pullela Gopichand as influences on how he treats setbacks as learning opportunities rather than failures. That perspective, he suggests, has shaped his tolerance for the iterative, sometimes imperfect process of implementing new systems within a highly regulated environment.

The conversation offers a window into how pharmaceutical IT leaders are reframing digital transformation as an organizational and relational undertaking rather than a purely technological one. For an industry where regulatory scrutiny and patient safety limit appetite for rapid disruption, that emphasis on process, trust, and gradual cultural change may prove more durable than any single software deployment.