Why Pooled Equipment Doesn't Work in Multi-Product Pharma

The promise is seductive: buy one piece of equipment, use it for everything. Maximum flexibility. Minimum capital. What's not to love?

In pharmaceutical manufacturing, quite a lot.

Pooled equipment — resources shared across many products — sounds efficient in theory. In practice, it creates a web of hidden costs that slowly strangles your throughput. Here's why dedicated routes almost always win in multi-product pharma, and the rare exceptions where pooling can work.

The Hidden Costs of Flexibility

When operations teams request new equipment, they often argue for the most flexible option. "If we can run everything on it, we maximize utilization." This logic seems bulletproof. It's also wrong.

Changeover Complexity Compounds

Every product change requires a changeover. In pharma, changeovers aren't just mechanical adjustments — they're validation events. You need to prove no cross-contamination. You need cleaning documentation. You need QA sign-off.

With dedicated equipment, you do this once during validation and then run the same product repeatedly. With pooled equipment, you do it constantly.

Consider a pooled tablet press running 15 products. If each product has a 2-hour changeover and you batch monthly, that's 30 hours of changeover per month. But it's worse than that. Changeover time doesn't scale linearly — it compounds. Operators make mistakes. Cleaning fails verification. The QA queue backs up. That theoretical 2 hours becomes 4.

Over a year, a pooled press might lose 20-30% of its capacity to changeovers. A dedicated press running the same product continuously loses essentially nothing.

Cross-Contamination Risk Is Real

In multi-product pharma, you're often making drugs with very different therapeutic profiles on the same equipment. A blood pressure medication followed by an antibiotic followed by a hormone treatment.

The cleaning validation requirements are intense. Miss something, and you're not just facing a batch deviation — you're facing a product recall, a Form 483, or worse. The regulatory and quality costs of pooled equipment are invisible until they're not.

Dedicated routes eliminate this risk category entirely. Same product, same equipment, every time. Cleaning validation becomes a one-time event, not a daily gauntlet.

Scheduling Becomes a Nightmare

With dedicated equipment, scheduling is simple: run what you need, when you need it. Equipment is available because nothing else uses it.

With pooled equipment, you're playing a multi-dimensional chess game. Every product competes for the same resource. Demand spikes cascade across your entire portfolio. One product's delay becomes everyone's problem.

We've seen operations teams spend 30-40% of their time managing scheduling conflicts on pooled resources. That's management overhead that adds no value — it's just managing the problems that pooling creates.

Utilization Metrics Lie

Here's the cruelest irony: pooled equipment often looks more efficient on paper. "90% utilization! Maximum asset efficiency!"

But what does that 90% include? Changeover time. Cleaning time. Waiting for QA. Re-runs after failed verification. The equipment is "busy" — but not producing product.

A dedicated press at 70% utilization might produce more actual product than a pooled press at 90% utilization. The numerator matters more than the ratio.

The Cascade Effect

Pooling at one step creates bottlenecks everywhere.

Imagine a pooled granulator feeding three separate compression lines. The granulator runs Product A for three days, then changes to Product B for two days, then Product C for three days.

During Product A's run, Compression Lines 2 and 3 sit idle — they have no material. During Product B, Lines 1 and 3 are idle. The granulator shows high utilization. The compression lines show low utilization. And ops leadership scratches their heads wondering why throughput is below target.

This is the cascade effect. Pooled equipment upstream starves dedicated equipment downstream. The bottleneck propagates, but the symptom appears elsewhere.

When Pooling Can Work

Not all pooling is bad. There are specific conditions where shared resources make sense.

Similar products with minimal changeover. If you're running three strengths of the same active ingredient in the same formulation, changeover is trivial. Same cleaning protocol, same parameters, minimal adjustment. Here, pooling can work.

Low-volume, high-variety specialty products. If you make 50 products with annual volumes of 10 batches each, dedicated equipment would require 50 machines sitting idle 90% of the time. Pooling makes sense when no single product justifies dedication.

Campaign scheduling. Instead of frequent changeovers, run Product A for all of Q1, Product B for Q2, and so on. You get the flexibility of pooling with the efficiency of dedication — at the cost of higher inventory requirements.

Bottleneck resources that can't be duplicated. Some equipment is so expensive or specialized that duplication isn't viable. An aseptic filling line might cost $50M. A lyophilizer might have a 2-year lead time. When dedication isn't an option, pooling becomes a constraint to manage, not a choice to make.

The Dedicated Route Advantage

When you assign products to dedicated routes, several good things happen:

Predictable throughput. No scheduling conflicts. No changeover variability. You know what you can make and when.

Simpler quality. Cleaning validation is a one-time event. Cross-contamination risk drops to near zero. Your QA team can focus on things that matter instead of changeover documentation.

Faster lead times. Without scheduling competition, products flow faster from order to delivery. Customer service improves without adding capacity.

Accurate capacity planning. When each product has a defined home, you can calculate true capacity for each product. No more surprises when demand spikes.

Lower total cost. Yes, you might need more equipment. But the savings in changeover time, quality costs, scheduling overhead, and expediting fees often exceed the capital cost.

How to Transition

If your plant is heavily pooled today, you don't have to change everything at once.

Step 1: Identify high-volume products. Start with products that run frequently enough to justify dedication. Calculate: how many batches per year? What's the changeover time saved per batch?

Step 2: Calculate the breakeven. At what batch frequency does dedicated equipment pay for itself? Often, it's lower than you'd think — 12-20 batches per year in many cases.

Step 3: Start with the worst bottlenecks. Where is pooling causing the most pain? That's where dedication has the highest impact.

Step 4: Campaign what you can't dedicate. For products that don't justify their own equipment, group similar products and run campaigns. Monthly changeovers instead of weekly.

Pooled equipment is a compromise that rarely delivers on its promise. The flexibility looks valuable until you count the cost — in changeovers, in quality risk, in scheduling chaos. For most multi-product pharma operations, dedicated routes aren't a luxury. They're how you get throughput that matches your theoretical capacity.

Ettala helps pharmaceutical manufacturers see where pooling is costing them — and design operations that actually work. Get in touch to see how your plant really runs.