You name what's worth rethinking
Today's friction is the starting point. But the real question is which of this work shouldn't exist in its current form at all, and that is what this group goes after.
Regulatory Content Working Group
Quarterly sessions with people solving the same problem, working through where AI and structured content reinforce each other, what to sequence first, and how to justify it internally. Plus a working example every 60 days so the conversation stays concrete.
How it works
Today's friction is the starting point. But the real question is which of this work shouldn't exist in its current form at all, and that is what this group goes after.
Ninety minutes with peers doing the same job. Stories, priorities, hard questions. Breakout groups between sessions keep it moving.
Within 60 days you see a working example of a priority the group defined. Not a mockup, not a roadmap slide. Something running.
Our commitment
Where a 60-day example is useful to the wider field, we intend to publish it openly so your team can run it and build on it.
Automation should start with the work operators want done, then be built.
What you take back
You are giving up 90 minutes a quarter. In return you get a read on how peers at comparable organizations are handling the same problems, and a written summary you can circulate internally.
Priorities, patterns, and where the group disagreed, shared back without company names attached.
Functional and technical people from sponsors and CROs across labeling, CMC, clinical, and safety.
The work the group prioritizes is the work Glemser builds against, starting with the first 60-day example.
How we run it