Compliant technology, with a quality framework sized to your organisation.
A fixed-fee six-month programme for startups, spin-offs and SMEs approaching their first GMP inspection. You get senior support for decisions that are expensive to reverse — architecture, supplier choice and quality system scope — while quality ownership and approval remain with your organisation.
Small companies get compliance advice designed for large ones
Templates developed for large organisations can be disproportionate for a company of twenty people. Applied without adaptation, they create procedures the organisation cannot consistently follow. We design a smaller framework that still defines ownership, evidence and oversight clearly.
A quality system that is not used
Forty SOPs bought as a package, left unadapted, referencing roles that do not exist in the organisation. The first inspection finds the gap between what is written and what is done.
Nothing, until it is urgent
Compliance postponed until a partner, an investor or a regulator asks. Then everything at once, under a deadline, at a higher cost — and usually with a system already built the wrong way.
Proportionate, sequenced, yours
We start from the technology already in use, the intended GxP use and the applicable regulatory expectations. We then prioritise the controls and evidence needed to reduce risk, identifying where redesign is necessary.
Six months, four phases
Position
Full picture of your systems, your GxP scope and your gap against the inspection you will face. Delivered as a prioritised roadmap.
Foundation
The documents everything else hangs on: validation policy, risk approach, supplier assessment template, change control — written to your size.
Build
We validate the systems that matter first, in priority order, and train your team to run the process afterwards.
On call
Optional retainer for the questions that arrive without warning, and for the inspection when it comes.
What this looks like in practice
Four situations we see repeatedly. If one of them is roughly your situation, the programme will fit.
Choosing a LIMS before it becomes irreversible
Three vendors shortlisted, supplier assessments run, contract clauses drafted before signature — so the audit trail requirements are settled before the system is bought rather than after.
Everything is in spreadsheets
Which spreadsheets are GxP records, which can stay exactly as they are, and a validated path for the few that matter. Most of them turn out not to.
A first AI model heading toward a regulated decision
Intended-use statement, GxP boundary and acceptance criteria written before development, so QA is not asked to approve a finished black box six months later.
From two clients to twelve
Segregation model, per-client traceability and an audit-readiness pack that does not need rebuilding every time a new customer arrives with their own quality agreement.
Launchpad is right for you if…
Good fit
Where the programme delivers most.
- SizeRoughly 5 to 80 people, no dedicated validation function
- StageBuilding or scaling before a first inspection or partner audit
- TechModern stack — cloud, SaaS, AI — with no GxP precedent internally
- IntentYou want to own the system afterwards, not outsource it indefinitely
Not a fit
We will say so on the first call.
- Established QAYou already have a functioning validation team — take services instead
- Findings openAn active regulatory deadline calls for remediation rather than a programme
- Certificate onlyIf the objective is documentation to present to an investor, we are not the right fit
- No ownerIf nobody internally has time to act as counterpart, the programme is unlikely to succeed.
Tell us what you are building.
Forty-five minutes, no charge. We will tell you plainly whether you need Launchpad, a single package, or nothing yet.