Finding the Right Fit in Medical Writing Resourcing

At the Indegene Digital Summit 2025 Virtual Edition, medical writing leaders came together to tackle a challenge that feels universal across organizations: how to place the right writer on the right work, at the right time without compromising quality or burning out teams.

In a focused discussion featuring Matthew C. Robillard, Senior Director, Strategic Medical Writing at AbbVie, and Kim Jochman, PhD, RAC, Senior Director, Medical Writing & Disclosure at Merck, the conversation examined what “right fit” truly means as medical writing scales across complex portfolios. Moderated by Julia Forjanic Klapproth, Senior Partner at Trilogy, an Indegene company, the session moved beyond staffing mechanics to explore resourcing as a leadership and operating-model decision. This blog captures those insights, unpacking how visibility, skill alignment, and development intent shape sustainable medical writing performance.

Resourcing in medical writing goes far beyond availability. The right fit combines multiple dimensions:

A writer may be highly skilled in clinical study report writing but overloaded with parallel deliverables. Another may have capacity but limited exposure to complex submissions. Treating these profiles as interchangeable creates risk.

The discussion highlighted the importance of identifying each writer’s “sweet spot.” This includes not only what the writer does well, but also where confidence, interest, and learning readiness intersect. When that alignment is missing, quality suffers, reviews slow down, and teams become reactive rather than strategic.

One recurring insight was the danger of equating resourcing with capacity management. Availability does not equal readiness.

Overloading high performers often feels efficient in the short term. In reality, it increases rework, reviewer fatigue, and attrition. On the other end, under-challenging writers leads to stagnation and disengagement.

Effective resourcing balances delivery needs with development intent. Assignments should stretch writers just enough to build capability without pushing them into failure. That balance is difficult to achieve without structured visibility into skills and workload.

A key theme from the session was the need for explicit skill visibility. Many organizations rely on informal knowledge to assign work. That approach does not scale.

Competency grids, experience matrices, and document-specific skill maps were discussed as practical tools to support better decisions. These frameworks help leaders see not just who is available, but who is best positioned to deliver a specific document type whether it is a protocol, a clinical study report, or a complex regulatory submission.

In environments using the FSP model in clinical research, this visibility becomes even more critical. When writers operate across sponsor and functional service provider boundaries, assumptions about experience can quickly break down. Structured data reduces guesswork and improves outcomes.

Resourcing decisions shape development trajectories. The session emphasized mentorship as a powerful lever to convert delivery work into learning opportunities.

Pairing experienced writers with less experienced colleagues allows organizations to meet immediate project needs while building future capacity. Shadowing models, co-authoring approaches, and staged ownership transfers help junior writers gain confidence without exposing programs to unnecessary risk.

Peer review processes and feedback loops also play a role. When feedback is tracked systematically, managers gain insight into strengths, gaps, and progression readiness. Over time, resourcing becomes predictive rather than reactive.

Traditional progression models often rely on document counts. Complete a certain number of dossiers or reports, and advancement follows. The session challenged this thinking.

While repetition matters, numbers alone do not reflect mastery. Two clinical study reports can differ dramatically in complexity, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory scrutiny. Competency-based assessment offers a more accurate signal of readiness.

At the same time, the discussion acknowledged the need for balance. Exposure to repeated document types still builds fluency. The difference lies in evaluating how well the work was performed, not just how often it was completed.

Rotational exposure emerged as a strong enabler of resilience. Writers who work across protocols, informed consent forms, disclosures, and clinical study report writing develop a broader understanding of the development lifecycle.

This cross-document perspective improves decision-making. Writers understand downstream implications. They anticipate reviewer questions earlier. They communicate more effectively with cross-functional partners.

In the context of the fsp model clinical trials environment, rotational exposure also reduces dependency on single points of failure. Teams become more adaptable, and resourcing flexibility improves.

The functional service provider model has transformed how medical writing teams scale. It enables access to specialized skills, faster ramp-up, and global coverage.

What it does not eliminate is the need for thoughtful resourcing. The same principles apply. Fit matters. Development matters. Chemistry matters.

Organizations that succeed with the fsp model treat external writers as extensions of internal teams. They invest in onboarding, clarify expectations, and maintain visibility into skills and growth. Those that treat resourcing as transactional often struggle with inconsistency and churn.

The session also touched on emerging technologies. AI-assisted drafting and automation are beginning to influence how documents are produced, including early work in regulatory submissions and report generation.

The takeaway was pragmatic. Technology can accelerate execution, but it does not replace judgment. As tools evolve, the need for strong resourcing discipline increases. Writers will spend less time drafting and more time reviewing, interpreting, and advising.

In this future, resourcing becomes a leadership capability. It requires seeing beyond immediate deliverables to build sustainable, adaptable teams.

Medical writing resourcing is not a game of speed. It is a game of alignment. Leaders who learn to see the full board, and place each piece with intent, will deliver better documents, stronger teams, and more predictable outcomes.