Where Innovation Is Moving the Advanced Therapies Supply Chain: A Q&A with Alison Pritchard 

Following the Advanced Therapies Congress 2026, where Alison Pritchard delivered a keynote and participated in a panel discussion, she sat down for a brief conversation to expand on some of the themes that emerged during this year’s event. Conversations ranged widely, from digital tools to fresh vs. frozen starting material considerations to the realities of global expansion, and Alison’s perspective captures a few of the ideas she believes are shaping the next phase of supply chain design in advanced therapies. 

Q: One topic that seemed to be revisited throughout the conference was digital innovation. What stood out to you about where the field actually is right now? 

AP: There’s no shortage of interest in digital tools. Everyone wants to talk about predictive analytics, automated workflows, and, of course, AI enabled decision making. The challenge is that our systems across the advanced therapies industry are still too fragmented to support those capabilities in a reliable way. Data lives in different environments with different standards, and until we align those fundamentals, digital platforms will only deliver part of what they promise. 

We are making progress, though. Closed systems, improved tracking, and better data capture are already strengthening day-to-day performance. But broader digital transformation will require more consistency across the industry before these tools can operate as fully intended. 

Q: When we speak about automation, what is realistic today? How do you think teams should approach it? 

AP: There’s a range of technologies that tend to get grouped together under the word “automation”. Some of it is robotics, or closed systems. Some of it is about digital consolidation in QC. The right level of automation, or what and how automation is designed and implemented, depends in large part on the programme itself, what stage it is in, what resources are or aren’t available, and how it’s structured. 

For smaller teams, it can be difficult to justify that type of investment early on. Partnering with organisations that already have that infrastructure in place can help bridge that gap, but looking ahead is important. Closed systems and scalable processes make future growth much more manageable. Think of it as preparing the environment now so it can support the demands that come later. 

Q: The topic of early design decisions is another theme that came up several times. Why do those choices matter so much later on? 

AP: Programmes make reasonable decisions early in development because the focus is usually on getting the science moving. Fresh leukapheresis starting material, for example, works perfectly well when everything occurs within a single hospital or a local region. Once the programme expands, however, that same assumption becomes a barrier. Suddenly, you’re deciding how to maintain viability across borders or shifting to cryopreservation workflows that require new processes and validation. 

The same is true for secondary packaging or shipping system considerations. Something as straightforward as the packaging that holds the final drug product becomes a cost-of-goods issue when the number of shipments increases dramatically. These small upstream decisions often carry further than teams expect, especially once the programme expands. It’s one of the reasons investors now look for early stage plans that show a clear understanding of future scale. Programmes that build with later phases in view tend to move more smoothly as they grow and encounter more operational weight. 

Q: Vendor partnerships came up a few times as well. How do you think about the role of partnerships, particularly in the context of scale? 

AP: Partnerships work best when they begin early. When vendors understand your therapy and your team long before scale puts pressure on your operations and supply chain, they’re far better equipped to support you. For the advanced therapies industry in particular, I’d argue that vendor relationships are not transactional. Every partner becomes part of the delivery chain, and when something unexpected happens, you need people who recognise what’s at stake and can respond quickly. This is something that, from the partner side, I can say we’ve come across, and we’re very proud that we’re able to step in quickly and solve even large-scale issues for our clients. 

These early relationships create continuity. Having strong partners from an early stage helps you avoid the scramble that happens when you try to retrofit a vendor into an already stressed system. Starting early allows them to grow with you, and it provides a strong foundation for developing the flexibility to scale within an existing framework. 

Q: One thing the advanced therapies industry is always discussing seems to be autologous versus allogeneic programmes. How do you think about the difference in supply chain pressure between the two? 

AP: Autologous therapies are notoriously sensitive, being so individualised, to timing and scheduling. Everything has to align at once. One patient. One batch. One manufacturing slot. One scheduled administration of the final therapy. If anything gets out of sync along the way, you may not get a second opportunity. Timing and visibility matter immensely. Teams want to see where their material is in real time and understand the conditions it has experienced during transit from collection to manufacturing to administration. 

Allogeneic therapies have a different set of considerations. You gain more time and flexibility, but then you take on questions about biostorage models, regional distribution, and long term inventory management. Each modality places weight in different parts of the supply chain. 

They aren’t managed the same way, but both require thoughtful design from the earliest stages. Building the right supply chain structure early allows it to support current needs while absorbing the additional pressures that come with scale. 

Q: When it comes to global expansion, the general theme seemed to be that programmes underestimate how much changes across regions. What is your perspective on that? 

AP: It’s commonly assumed that a process that works in one geography will translate directly to another. It’s a very natural assumption, but in reality it rarely holds. In real world expansion, you encounter customs requirements, regulatory pathways, release frameworks, and operating cultures that can vary significantly from region to region. 

Standardisation is essential, but it doesn’t remove regional nuance. Once you begin operating globally, the system becomes more sensitive to differences that weren’t visible in early trials. Recognising this earlier than most organisations do reduces rework and protects timelines. 

Q: Do you have any final thoughts around the conference and conversations that were happening? 

AP: Advanced Therapies Congress brought together a range of perspectives — it always does. Across the conversations I was part of, one common theme was that advanced therapies are entering a phase where operational design is beginning to influence success as much as scientific design. Digital innovation will play a role, but only when the foundations beneath it are aligned. 

Early decisions matter more than many teams realise. As programmes begin reaching global scale, the supply chain requirements shift quickly, and the systems around the therapy must be ready for that shift. As therapies grow in complexity and reach, the infrastructure supporting them needs to grow with equal intention. 

Our sincere thanks to Alison Pritchard, VP Business Development – EMEA at Cryoport Systems, for taking the time to share her insights with us. If you’d like to catch up on more from Advanced Therapies Week, you can read a recap of the Keynote Presentation or a summary of the Panel Discussion, or download the Scientific Poster our team presented this year.