It's a decision layer. Under the hood, it's a unified commercial data model and analytics engine that sits across IQVIA, CRM, claims, payer, hub, and SP data. Dashboards are just one interface. The real value is that the same governed logic powers conversational questions, automated driver analysis, AI agent investigations, and IC/FP&A workflows. So every team pulls from one source of truth instead of maintaining shadow spreadsheets with conflicting definitions.

Think of it as four steps, all wired together:

1. Unify the data. Connect and harmonize IQVIA/Symphony, CRM (Veeva, Salesforce), claims, payer, hub, SP, and internal systems into one commercial model. No more manual extracts and Excel stitching.

2. Ask in plain English. Brand, field, and access teams ask questions like “Why did NBRx drop in the Northeast last month?” The system maps that to governed metrics and runs the right joins and aggregations.

3. Deploy AI agents. Agents watch hundreds of metrics 24/7. When something meaningful moves, they automatically investigate root causes, quantify business impact, and assemble the story.

4. Receive proactive insights & recommendations. Instead of raw charts, you get a targeted brief: “Prior auth denials increased 18% with Aetna in Q3; estimated TRx impact –$2.3M; root cause: new step-therapy requirement; next steps: escalate to access team and review formulary status across priority plans.”

That’s the real workflow shift: from “pull a report and hunt” to “the system tells you what changed and what to do about it.”

Conversational analytics is the front door: it lets humans ask better questions faster. Agentic analytics is the back office: it keeps watch when no one is asking anything.You start with conversational analytics so people can finally get consistent answers on demand. Once that foundation is solid, agents take over the boring part: continuous monitoring, driver analysis, alerting, and narrative generation. You don’t need agents to get value, but without agents you’ll always be one meeting behind your own data.

If all you want is nicer dashboards, the ROI will be mediocre. The upside comes when you use the system to:
‍
- Catch access issues and payer changes early enough to protect TRx, not just explain lost quarters
- Reallocate field effort toward high-value HCPs and accounts based on integrated potential
- Tighten IC plans so you’re paying for the behavior that drives scripts

For most brands, that shows up as a mix of protected revenue (less leakage) and freed-up analyst/field time. If the numbers don’t move, you haven’t really changed how decisions are made; you’ve just relabeled the charts.

You don’t need a multi-year “data transformation.” Most teams see meaningful impact once:

- Priority data sources (scripts, CRM, payer) are wired into a unified model
- Core KPIs and definitions are agreed across brand, field, access, and finance
- A handful of high-value workflows (monthly brand reviews, access risk monitoring, IC design) are rebuilt on top of the new stack

The bigger change is cultural: analysts move from building reports to designing models and workflows; business users stop screenshotting dashboards and start interrogating the live system. If you’re not ready to change how decisions are made, the tech alone won’t save you.

Your current stack probably looks like this: data warehouse in the middle, BI on top, vendor portals on the side, and Excel everywhere. It works, but only if you’re willing to pay with time and manual effort.

Pharma Intelligence assumes that’s table stakes and pushes further:
- One commercial semantic layer instead of every team rebuilding metrics on their own
- Conversational access so questions don’t bottleneck on the analytics team
- Agentic monitoring so the system surfaces issues instead of waiting for someone to notice them

If your existing stack already does all of that, you don’t need this. If it doesn’t, that’s the gap this hub is designed to expose and close.