A career spanning both sides of the decision
Kevin has built products, sold platforms, formed commercial partnerships, led internal technology organizations, and managed external vendors. That combination gives him experience with the incentives and obligations on both sides of a sourcing decision. His early finance, audit, procurement, and vendor-management work at GTE provided an operational foundation; later roles added enterprise commercialization and regulated clinical delivery.
Ultragenyx sourcing responsibilities
At Ultragenyx he led vendor selection and performance governance across regulated technology partners and worked with quality agreements and operational expectations. The portfolio included clinical data, patient-facing capabilities, eCOA/ePRO, connected devices, and supporting services. He coordinated with Clinical Development, Data Management, QA, and Vendor Performance Management.
Kevin also founded and mentored the internal organization that could build selected capabilities. This allowed sourcing analysis to consider a real internal delivery option, including the staffing, validation, support, and lifecycle responsibilities it would require.
A concrete in-house alternative for IQVIA
Kevin led licensing and adaptation of Dexcom’s Bluetooth reference application for direct communication with the body-worn sensor, with research UI/UX and GCP requirements informing the work. The integration was not deployed in production. Its value included making an in-house development alternative credible in vendor discussions.
According to Kevin’s account, he used the possibility of replacing the external solution to improve IQVIA’s responsiveness to study requirements. The supported result is that reported responsiveness improvement, rather than an assertion that IQVIA was replaced or a quantified cost saving was achieved.
What the decision had to cover
His documented work connects clinical need, target users, workflow integration, technical feasibility, regulatory considerations, evidence requirements, adoption measures, and business rationale. The decision could not rest on a demonstration alone. A product had to fit the study’s timing, data needs, users, support model, and quality environment.
Internal development likewise required more than engineering capacity. Product ownership, QA/CSV, service delivery, vendor dependencies, maintenance, and change management had to be funded and organized. Kevin’s departmental budget and portfolio responsibilities made those costs part of the same decision.
Commercial and enterprise foundation
Earlier roles included RFP response leadership and complex enterprise deals. His career record includes a $9 million prepaid platform deployment with Optus Australia and a $3 million strategic partnership with Amdocs at Vitria. The amounts are career-reported transaction values, not published financial disclosures linked in this archive.
At Diabetech, he combined product development with partnerships involving device companies, telecommunications firms, payers, providers, academic collaborators, and public programs. The relationships had to connect technical capability to an operating and commercial model.
Management implications
Kevin’s strongest contribution is connecting the purchase or build decision to what the organization must operate afterward. That includes ownership, workflow compatibility, performance expectations, accountability, and risk. The same experience is applicable to platform rationalization, upstream innovation, partner assessment, and establishment of a new clinical technology function.
Sources and record basis
The project account is based on Kevin’s CV, approved career statements, and supporting project materials. Related public research and professional work are available in the source index.