Best Practices for Improving Client–Vendor Project Execution and Collaboration
In one of my previous blogs (Dear SaaS Vendor PM - A Letter from the Client PM), I shared several of the often-unspoken expectations that make-or-break successful client–vendor project partnerships, including early alignment, shared planning, scope control, and clear communication. This post builds on that foundation with practical, execution-level best practices that directly impact delivery success in regulated environments and SaaS implementations.
Across pharma, biotech, and validated SaaS projects, I repeatedly see the same execution factors determine outcomes. First, all front-facing vendor roles must be clearly defined upfront. Never assume the client understands who owns what. In one recent engagement, a senior stakeholder believed the vendor project manager was the account manager, while other team members assumed the role belonged to Customer Success—an early misalignment that created avoidable confusion and friction.
Roles must not only be clearly defined, but assigned resources must also be appropriately qualified. In that same engagement, although responsibilities were documented and understood, the assigned resources were not GxP-qualified project managers, which immediately introduced validation and compliance risk.
Validation and Quality Assurance (QA) requirements must remain continuously at the forefront of mind throughout execution. These are not phase-gated activities; they are ongoing obligations in regulated delivery. Project plans must also be continuously maintained in accordance with approved quality, validation, and regulatory standards to prevent process drift, audit exposure, and misalignment over time.
Multiple initiatives should never be combined into a single execution plan. That structure belongs at the program level, not within individual project delivery. Similarly, when Agile is used for development, it must be governed within an overarching Waterfall GxP plan. Waterfall defines regulatory stage gates, configuration dry runs, formal validation testing (IQ/OQ/PQ), and QA oversight, while Agile enables iterative delivery within those controlled milestones. Sprint plans and backlog forecasts must be baselined into the master schedule to maintain scope control and manage delivery risk.
Execution risks must be identified early—before they become delivery blockers. This includes upcoming software patches or releases, critical resources on planned leave, and global time zone dependencies. When these conditions exist, they must be formally addressed during planning to ensure expectations are aligned and risks are actively managed.
Clients also play a critical role in strengthening the partnership from the outset. Alignment should be formalized through a project charter and, for GxP programs, through formal change control. Scope, inclusions and exclusions, definition of done, key milestones, internal dependencies, and fixed business deadlines must be explicitly defined. For long-term engagements or initiatives with higher alignment risk, implementing a formal Project Management Plan (PMP) helps ensure consistent governance throughout the whole implementation lifecycle (The other PMP: Your Project Management Plan).
Final thought for SaaS and technology vendors: No matter how strong your product may be, poor project execution can eclipse every technical advantage you bring to the table.
Need help ensuring your SaaS-managed implementations meet internal standards and required quality and validation expectations? I partner with life sciences and regulated organizations to deliver inspection-ready execution with disciplined, compliant delivery across every phase of implementation. To continue the conversation, please request a discussion through my contact page.