A Role That Doesn't Fit Neatly Into Any Box

This is the second in a series. The first, "Building Something Worthy," explored why biotech FP&A professionals deserve better than the tools they have.

---

When a clinical-stage biotech company launches a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial, every operational layer is purpose-built. Clinical data flows through EDC systems. Safety is tracked in validated platforms. Regulatory submissions follow defined workflows. Manufacturing campaigns are managed with structured timelines and quality controls.

But the financial layer that connects all of it, the layer that translates enrollment curves into burn rates, protocol amendments into runway impact, CRO contracts into capital strategy, has no operating system.

It runs on human integration. And that is a structural bottleneck.

---

The Invisible Integration Layer

When I describe what I do for a living to a stranger, their eyes typically narrow and they comment, "That sounds... very niche." It is, and it might be one of the hardest roles to fill in clinical-stage biotech.

Not the CMO. Not Regulatory. The person who makes the numbers match the science.

At most clinical-stage biotech companies, this person is the FP&A function. Sometimes it's a team of two or three. Often it's one person. And what that person actually does goes far beyond what the title suggests:

• Translating 40-page clinical trial budgets into multi-year forecast models
• Mapping CRO contracts to accrual methodologies
• Interpreting enrollment velocity shifts into burn rate implications
• Reconciling pass-through costs that arrive irregularly
• Converting milestone slippage into capital strategy
• Explaining all of it to a board of directors

In other industries, FP&A is largely analytical and repeatable. In clinical-stage biotech, it is integrative and interpretive. It requires clinical operations fluency, financial modeling depth, and accounting precision, all operating simultaneously.

There is no system performing that integration. The integration lives in a person.

---

Three Career Paths, None Complete

The talent pipeline for this role is thin because the skills develop in only a few ways, and none of them are fast.

One path is through clinical operations: deep familiarity with trial budgets, enrollment dynamics, and vendor relationships, but often without the financial modeling or corporate finance skills needed to build a 20-year cash forecast. Another is through traditional FP&A: strong planning mechanics, but a steep learning curve on clinical vocabulary like FPI, EoP2, pass-through costs, and per-patient cost models. The third, and most reliable, is growing up in biotech finance across multiple clinical programs. These people are exceptional. But there aren't many of them, and the ones who are good move into senior roles quickly or go out on their own.

Each path produces partial competence. None reliably produces integration.

The AFP's 2025 Compensation and Benefits Survey found that finding qualified candidates is the top talent management issue across corporate finance, and Robert Half's 2025 outlook identified FP&A specifically as the most evident skills gap on finance and accounting teams. On the biotech side, 80% of firms report struggling to fill critical roles, and biopharma workforce unemployment sits at just 2.8% even during contraction. The shortage is real on both sides. What no published study has captured yet is that the combination of clinical operations fluency and FP&A expertise is where the bottleneck is most acute. That's not a data point. That's 15 years of watching companies try to fill this role.

---

This Is Not a Hiring Problem

It is tempting to frame this as a talent shortage. It isn't. It is an infrastructure gap.

When the financial architecture of an industry depends on rare individuals rather than embedded systems, scaling becomes constrained by talent availability rather than scientific progress.

Companies that can't find the right person respond rationally. They hire someone with strong finance skills and hope they'll pick up the clinical context on the job. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it means the company spends six months with a financial model that doesn't reflect the actual dynamics of their clinical program, and nobody realizes it until a board member asks a question that exposes the gap.

Or they distribute the function across multiple people. The controller handles accounting and close. A consultant handles the forecast. The VP of Clinical Operations provides the trial budget inputs. The Chief of Staff assembles the board materials. Each person does their piece well, but nobody holds the integrated view. The seams between their work products become the places where errors accumulate and context is lost.

Or they hire someone like me. I'm a fractional FP&A leader. I've spent 15 years building the financial architecture for clinical-stage biotechs and my models have been the direct basis for over $100 million in capital raises. I've supported a public offering and a reverse merger. My clients get that depth without the cost of a full-time executive hire. The fractional model works. But it also proves the point: when I'm deep in one client's board cycle, my other clients wait. When I'm at another client's bi-annual budget offsite, the institutional knowledge I carry (which contracts have been amended, which accrual methodology the auditors approved, what the CFO told the board last quarter) goes with me. If I were unavailable tomorrow, my clients wouldn't just lose a consultant. They'd lose the only integrated view of their financial architecture.

The fractional model exists because the integration layer is human. It breaks for the same reason.

---

What an Operating System Would Do

I don't think the answer is simply "train more people." The skills take time to develop, and the biotech industry's boom-and-bust cycles make it difficult to sustain a consistent talent pipeline. People enter during a funding boom, and some leave during the inevitable contraction.

The answer is to separate the integration from the individual.

A true financial operating system for clinical-stage biotech would not replace judgment. It would encode accrual logic tied to clinical milestones, normalize vendor and contract data across systems, map trial design to forecast architecture automatically, maintain a live connection between enrollment curves and runway, and structure board-ready financial narratives directly from system truth.

The knowledge I carry (how to structure a clinical trial accrual, how to map a CRO contract to a cash forecast, what a board package should look like for a company six months from a financing event) none of that is proprietary to me. It's the accumulated pattern recognition of an entire discipline. Right now it lives in the heads of a few hundred people scattered across the industry. If it lived in systems instead, every clinical-stage biotech could access it, regardless of whether they can find or afford someone like me.

Clinical programs are becoming more complex. Capital is more expensive. Boards are more demanding. Yet the financial integration layer remains manual. In most industries, operating systems emerge before complexity forces fragility. In clinical-stage biotech, complexity has already arrived but the operating system has not.

The scarcity isn't going away. The demand for this hybrid role will only increase as clinical programs grow more complex. The solution isn't to hope the talent pool expands fast enough. It's to build systems that let rare expertise scale.

Expertise should not be a bottleneck. It should be infrastructure.

---

My co-founder and I are building that layer at CaladanAI, a financial operating system purpose-built for clinical-stage biotech. If this resonates with your experience, I'd welcome the conversation.