For medical device and clinical trial organisations, a Global Labelling Management (GLM) migration can look deceptively straightforward from the outside. A new platform is selected, legacy content is mapped, templates are rebuilt, users are trained and the programme moves towards go-live.

In practice, migration often exposes deeper operational questions. Are workflows still fit for purpose? Is labelling data structured and governed? Are templates ready to migrate? Are local market variations properly understood? Are regulatory, quality, operations and manufacturing teams properly aligned?

The risk is treating GLM migration as a simple platform change. Legacy workflows often carry old workarounds, manual steps, unclear ownership and regional exceptions. Moving those into a new system does not remove the problem. It simply transfers it.

For buying teams, the risk is not only choosing the wrong platform. It is underestimating the implementation effort, internal resource required, supplier capability and long-term cost of getting the migration wrong.

Why Global Labelling Management (GLM) migration needs more than technology

The platform may provide structure, automation and control, but the real success of the programme depends on the foundations beneath it. If the current labelling operation relies on local knowledge, manual checks, disconnected systems and informal workarounds, the migration will reveal those weaknesses quickly.

That is why Global Labelling Management (GLM) migration should be treated as a strategic operational project. It touches process design, data governance, template logic, integration points, validation, training and long-term adoption. When those areas are considered early, the new system has a much better chance of delivering what the organisation actually needs: a controlled, compliant and effective labelling environment that works beyond go-live.

1. Workflow misalignment: when lift and shift carries old problems forward

One of the most common Global Labelling Management migration pitfalls is trying to replicate existing workflows in the new system. This can feel like the safest route because it gives teams something familiar to work with. In reality, it can be one of the quickest ways to limit the value of the new platform.

Legacy workflows are often shaped by the constraints of the old system. Over time, teams may have added manual checks, extra approval steps, local shortcuts or spreadsheet-based controls to compensate for gaps in the process. Those workarounds may have helped the organisation keep moving, but they are not always suitable for a modern GLM environment.

Common workflow risks include approval chains that are too complex, unclear ownership between global and local teams, and process steps that do not reflect how regulatory, quality, artwork and manufacturing teams need to work together. Integration points can also be missed, particularly where labelling depends on data or decisions from Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), Quality Management System (QMS), Post-Market Surveillance (PMS), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) or other enterprise systems. For IT and business systems teams, these integration points are often where migration risk becomes operational risk, particularly if ownership, testing and business continuity planning are not clear.

A GLM migration is the right moment to challenge what exists. Which steps are required for compliance? Which steps are there because the old system could not do something? Where is ownership unclear? Where do local teams need flexibility, and where does the organisation need stronger global control?

2. Data quality: the silent project killer in labelling system migration

A GLM system is only as strong as the data that flows through it. During migration, data quality issues that were previously hidden can become very visible. This is often where timelines start to slip, because data problems are rarely quick to fix once the build is already underway.

Medical device and clinical trial labelling data can sit across multiple sources, including regulatory systems, product lifecycle management platforms, quality systems, artwork files, spreadsheets, shared drives and local market records. If those sources are inconsistent, incomplete or poorly governed, the migration team has to make decisions that should ideally have been resolved much earlier.

Typical issues include inconsistent product records, uncontrolled Instructions for Use (IFU) content, incomplete market variation data, unclear Unique Device Identification (UDI) information, missing language requirements and poor traceability between labelling content and the source information that supports it. In some organisations, critical knowledge still sits with individuals rather than in controlled systems or documented processes.

Poor data can slow the migration itself because teams spend time investigating, cleansing and reconciling information. It can also weaken the future GLM environment because the new system inherits the same uncertainty that existed before. Good data governance needs to begin before migration becomes a technical build, with clear ownership over what data is required, where it sits, how it will be cleansed and how it will be maintained after go-live.

3. Template migration: more than recreating artwork

Template migration is often underestimated because templates can look like a design or formatting task. In a Global Labelling Management programme, they are much more than that. Templates carry structure, rules, market requirements, symbol logic, language considerations and compliance expectations.

When moving between GLM systems, the goal should not be to recreate every legacy template exactly as it was. The stronger approach is to rationalise before rebuilding. Which templates can be retired? Which variants can be consolidated? Which rules need to be documented? Which templates are business critical and need deeper review?

Common pitfalls include hard-coded content in legacy templates, regional variants that have not been catalogued, symbol libraries that need review, layout logic that behaves differently in the new system and artwork files that contain rules the wider organisation does not fully understand. These issues can have a direct impact on testing, validation, approval and user confidence.

Template migration needs strong collaboration between regulatory, quality, artwork, labelling operations and manufacturing teams. A template that looks right visually still needs to behave correctly in the system, draw from the right data and support the right level of control.

4. User adoption: the human factor behind a controlled GLM programme

Even a well-configured GLM platform can fail to deliver its intended value if the user community is not aligned. Migration changes how people work, how decisions are made and how responsibility is shared across functions and markets. That is why user adoption cannot be left until training at the end.

Regulatory Affairs (RA), Quality Assurance (QA), labelling, artwork, manufacturing, supply chain and local market teams may all interact with the GLM system in different ways. Each group will have its own pressures, concerns and expectations. If those perspectives are not understood early, the programme can meet resistance at exactly the point when it needs momentum.

Common adoption challenges include affiliates resisting new global processes, manufacturing sites relying on established print routines, RA and QA teams feeling overloaded by new responsibilities, and artwork teams worrying that system control will reduce flexibility. These concerns are not always objections to change. Often, they are signs that the operating model, governance or training approach needs more clarity.

Successful adoption depends on more than showing users where to click. Teams need to understand why the change is happening, what will improve, what will be expected of them and how the new process supports compliance and operational control. A controlled GLM programme needs the user community to be part of the design, not just the audience for the launch.

What successful GLM migrations do differently

The organisations that manage GLM migration well treat it as an opportunity to improve the labelling operating model. They do not simply ask, “How do we move what we have?” They ask, “What do we need this environment to do for the business, for compliance and for the people who will use it every day?”

Practical steps include:

  • Define the target operating model before detailed configuration begins.
  • Map workflows with regulatory, quality, operations and manufacturing input.
  • Identify data owners and cleanse critical labelling data early.
  • Review template libraries before rebuilding them in the new platform.
  • Document local market variations and decide where standardisation is possible.
  • Engage key user groups early, including global, regional and site-based teams.
  • Plan for post-go-live support, optimisation and ongoing governance.

These steps help turn migration from a technical transfer into a controlled transformation. They also reduce the risk of reaching go-live with a system that works technically but does not yet work well in real-world operations.

A controlled Global Labelling Management migration creates long-term confidence

A GLM migration is a major opportunity for medical device and clinical trial organisations to create stronger control, clearer ownership, better data and a more consistent way of managing labelling change across markets.

When migration is poorly planned, the impact can be felt well beyond the project team, from delayed approvals and increased manual work to compliance exposure, operational disruption and reduced confidence in the new system.

That is why the goal is not simply to move systems. It is to create a labelling environment that is controlled, compliant and effective in practice.

ScotMed Solutions supports medical device and clinical trial organisations with Global Labelling Management implementation, migration and project support. If your organisation is planning a GLM migration or reviewing the readiness of its current labelling environment, our team can help you identify the risks, strengthen the foundations and build a programme that works in real-world operations.