KEY INSIGHTS

1. Need for a centralized system for intake of requests and tracking

   • The OASIS system involved multiple touchpoints for various actions—requests were submitted on one platform, updates were sent via emails that were deleted after 90 days due to the company retention policy, and reviewers evaluated studies on a separate platform.

   • Users required a seamless, end-to-end solution that enables them to perform all actions in a single location

   
   

2. Lack of transparency of requests

   • Users lacked clarity on the status of their application after submitting a request.

   • Lack of visibility into requests submitted by colleagues, making it difficult to identify and prevent duplicate submissions.

   
   

3. Project management challenges

   • Each request was assigned to multiple reviewers within a therapeutic area, leading to confusion about which reviewer will take up the request.

   • Additionally, if one reviewer submitted a decision, others were not notified and were unable to edit the decision

     
     

4. Some activities required manual intervention

   • When studies required additional review, emails were manually sent to the respective reviewers

   • If reviewers needed additional information about a request, they had to manually follow up with the requesters

   
   

5. Unstable system caused multiple errors

   • Some requests remained in OASIS for weeks without any progress.

   • Details were interchanged between two requests, causing confusion.

   • The requester form lacked an autosave feature, leading to data loss if users exited before completing the submission.

     
     

6. Poor usability of the requester form

   • The requester form contained multiple unclear fields, causing delays in form submission as users had to repeatedly clarify these fields with reviewers or managers.

   • A single form was used for all types of requests but not all fields were applicable to every request type.