About This Position Paper Published by BioPhorum · March 2026

Why Criticality Mapping Fails Before Risk Management Begins

Most biopharmaceutical organizations treat risk management as a corrective exercise rather than a strategic one. The result: supply disruptions surface faster than response plans can be activated. Criticality mapping is the foundation that should prevent this, but without a recognized methodology, fragmented data, and competing organizational priorities, it rarely does the job it is designed for.

This BioPhorum position paper examines why criticality mapping underperforms in the biopharmaceutical supply chain and what a standardized, proactive approach looks like in practice. It draws on cross-industry input from leading manufacturers, CDMOs, and single-use suppliers, including SaniSure, to outline the structural gaps that leave organizations exposed and the actions that close them.

SaniSure Contribution Nader Mattar, SaniSure, contributed to this paper alongside experts from Amgen, BioMarin, Cytiva, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck.
  • Why no standardized methodology for criticality mapping currently exists across the biopharmaceutical industry
  • Seven key challenges limiting effective implementation of criticality mapping for business continuity
  • Four core issue areas: operational misalignment, fragmented information, digital tool underutilization, and resource gaps
  • How FMEA, HACCP, and ICH Q9(R1) frameworks can inform a more rigorous criticality mapping approach
  • A practical call to action for industry-wide standardization of business continuity risk roles and methods
7 Key challenges limiting criticality mapping in BCM activities
4 Core issue areas driving risk management gaps across the industry
0 Standardized methodologies currently recognized industry-wide for criticality mapping
01
Reactive Planning Displaces Proactive Risk Controls

Companies consistently prioritize short-term corrective measures and project delivery over long-term risk strategy, leaving critical assets unassessed until disruption occurs.

02
Fragmented Information Slows Risk Response

Lack of standardization and cross-functional collaboration creates delays in risk assessment and leads to miscommunication between procurement, quality, and supply chain teams.

03
Digital Tools Deployed Without Risk Maturity

Without a baseline level of organizational risk maturity, digital solutions are implemented reactively and inconsistently, producing fragmented data rather than actionable continuity intelligence.

04
RBCM Roles Are Understaffed and Misaligned

Business continuity roles are often part-time, siloed, and without clear organizational mandate, resulting in poor prioritization and decision-making when supply chain pressure escalates.

This paper is written for supply chain leaders, procurement teams, and quality professionals in biopharmaceutical manufacturing who are responsible for business continuity and need a clearer framework for assessing and prioritizing critical materials, suppliers, and processes.

Free Download

Download the Position Paper

Complete the form for instant access to the full BioPhorum analysis and implementation guidance.

BioPhorum · March 2026
Enhancing Criticality Mapping for Effective Risk Management
Position Paper  /  Supply Chain RBCM  /  PDF
  • Cross-industry insights from SaniSure, Amgen, Cytiva, Merck, and more
  • Practical RBCM frameworks aligned to ICH Q9(R1)
  • Seven identified barriers with actionable recommendations
  • Instant PDF access upon form submission