Ecosystem-Level Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for Sustainable Biologics Manufacturing in Emerging Economies

Ecosystem-Level Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for Sustainable Biologics Manufacturing in Emerging Economies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Ecosystem-Level Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for Sustainable Biologics Manufacturing in Emerging Economies Dogan Ornek This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9108111/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose Many emerging economies possess strong biotechnology research capacity yet struggle to translate this capability into inspection-ready Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) manufacturing and sustained biologics commercialization. Existing analyses often address infrastructure, workforce, regulation, or funding in isolation, without a systems framework explaining how these elements interact to shape commercialization outcomes. Methods In this study, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was adapted from a process-level quality tool to an ecosystem-level analytical framework spanning operational manufacturing readiness and governance–regulatory architecture. Failure modes were identified from pharmaceutical engineering guidance, quality risk-management standards, and supply-chain resilience literature. Each parameter was scored for severity, probability, and detectability using literature-anchored justification. Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) were calculated, ranked, and analyzed using Pareto methods, and mitigation strategies were mapped directly to each failure mode. Results The analysis identified 23 ecosystem-level failure modes with RPNs ranging from 120 to 504. The highest risks clustered at critical transition points, including pilot-to-GMP continuity, GMP manufacturing capacity, workforce readiness, supply-chain resilience, strategy coherence, funding continuity, and early regulatory engagement. Pareto analysis showed that a limited subset of parameters accounts for most ecosystem risk, while mid- and lower-RPN factors represent latent vulnerabilities affecting scalability, inspection readiness, cost efficiency, and institutional learning. Operational and governance risks were tightly coupled. Conclusion Ecosystem-level FMEA provides a transparent and transferable framework for prioritizing interventions and sequencing actions to enable sustainable biologics manufacturing in emerging economies. Sustainable biologics manufacturing failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) biomanufacturing ecosystem emerging ecosystem Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 INTRODUCTION Biologic medicines now account for a growing share of global pharmaceutical value, driven by their central role in oncology, immunology, rare diseases, and advanced therapeutics. Unlike small-molecule drugs, biologics require living systems, tightly controlled manufacturing environments, advanced analytical characterization, and highly skilled Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) operations to ensure safety, efficacy, and product consistency. As a result, manufacturing capability—not discovery alone—has become a primary determinant of commercial success and supply security in the biopharmaceutical sector [ 1 – 2 ]. Recent global disruptions, including pandemics, geopolitical tensions, logistics constraints, and shortages of critical raw materials, have highlighted the commercial and strategic risks associated with geographically concentrated biologics manufacturing. International policy and industry analyses increasingly emphasize the need for resilient, regionally distributed biomanufacturing capacity to ensure continuity of supply, reduce dependency risks, and enable market participation by emerging economies [ 3 – 4 ]. In response, many emerging economies have invested heavily in biotechnology research, academic excellence, and laboratory-scale infrastructure as part of national life-sciences strategies. Despite these investments, commercial outcomes have lagged behind scientific output. Many emerging economies with strong research capacity continue to face persistent challenges in translating development-stage biologics into inspection-ready GMP manufacturing and sustained market supply. This translational gap represents a critical commercialization failure, limiting return on public investment, discouraging private capital, and constraining participation in global biopharmaceutical value chains. Existing analyses typically approach this challenge through isolated lenses—such as workforce development, facility investment, regulatory reform, or funding mechanisms—without explaining how these elements interact to shape commercialization outcomes. However, pharmaceutical engineering experience consistently shows that biologics development failures occur most frequently at interfaces between process development, scale-up, quality systems, organizational coordination, and regulatory engagement rather than within individual unit operations [ 1 – 2 ]. Quality risk-management guidance similarly emphasizes that complex failures are rooted in system design weaknesses, not discrete technical deficiencies [ 5 ]. While risk-based methodologies are well established at the facility level—for process validation, quality systems, and inspection preparedness—there is limited methodological guidance for evaluating commercialization risk at the ecosystem level. At this level, infrastructure, workforce capability, governance structures, funding continuity, regulatory timing, and supply-chain resilience collectively determine whether biologics can progress from late-stage development to sustained commercial manufacturing. In practice, the absence of a systems framework often leads decision-makers to prioritize visible assets, such as GMP facilities, while underestimating less visible but commercially decisive factors including pilot-to-GMP continuity, inspection readiness, technology-transfer governance, and inter-institutional coordination [ 3 – 4 ]. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) provides a structured, transparent approach for analyzing risk in complex systems. Originally developed for engineering reliability and later adopted across healthcare and pharmaceutical quality management, FMEA enables systematic identification of failure modes, estimation of their relative impact, and prioritization of mitigation strategies [ 6 – 8 ]. Although traditionally applied to processes and equipment, the logic of FMEA is well suited to commercialization systems involving multiple actors, incentives, and regulatory dependencies, making it particularly relevant to biopharmaceutical ecosystems. In this study, FMEA is adapted from a process-level quality tool to an ecosystem-level analytical framework for biologics manufacturing commercialization in emerging economies. Rather than evaluating a single facility, the approach identifies and ranks systemic failure modes that prevent research activity from progressing to GMP readiness, regulatory approval, and sustained market supply. By integrating operational manufacturing readiness with governance, funding, and regulatory architecture, the framework provides a commercially relevant, decision-oriented view of ecosystem risk. The objectives of this study are to: identify ecosystem-level failure modes that constrain biologics commercialization quantify and rank their relative impact using an adapted FMEA methodology visualize risk concentration through Pareto analysis map actionable mitigation strategies and phased implementation priorities The contribution of this work is practical and directly aligned with the mission of Journal of Commercial Biotechnology. Rather than assessing whether emerging economies possess scientific capability, the study addresses whether they possess the integrated, inspection-ready, and investment-viable ecosystems required for sustainable biologics manufacturing and commercialization. METHODS Study Design and Analytical Framework This study applies an adapted Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) framework to assess risks constraining biologics commercialization at the ecosystem level in emerging economies. While FMEA is traditionally used for process-, equipment-, and quality-system risk assessment, it has been successfully extended to complex healthcare and supply-chain environments in which technical, organizational, and policy factors interact [ 6 – 8 ]. Here, FMEA is purposefully scaled from a facility-level quality tool to a systems-level analytical method capturing how infrastructure, workforce capability, supply chains, governance, funding continuity, and regulatory timing jointly determine whether research capability can be translated into inspection-ready GMP manufacturing and sustained market supply. System Boundary and Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis is the biologics manufacturing ecosystem, defined as the interconnected capabilities required to progress from late-stage development through GMP readiness to commercial production. The system boundary includes: (i) process scale-up and technology transfer; (ii) GMP operations and inspection preparedness; (iii) workforce competence and engineering support; (iv) analytical and digital quality systems; (v) supply-chain robustness for critical inputs; and (vi) governance, funding, and regulatory conditions enabling commercialization. This boundary reflects quality risk-management guidance emphasizing that failures in complex systems arise at interfaces between technical execution and organizational control [ 5 ]. Structuring and Identification of Failure Modes Failure modes were structured into two analytically distinct but interdependent domains: Operational manufacturing readiness, encompassing infrastructure, workforce, process capability, analytics, digital maturity, maintenance, supply chain, and technology transfer; and Governance, funding, and regulatory architecture, encompassing strategy coherence, funding continuity, regulatory engagement, inspection readiness, coordination mechanisms, and execution culture. A failure mode was defined as a structural or operational condition increasing the likelihood of delayed GMP readiness, regulatory non-compliance, elevated cost of goods, or inability to sustain commercial biologics production [ 9 ]. Failure modes were identified through synthesis of pharmaceutical GMP and quality-system guidance [ 1 – 2 ], international analyses of pharmaceutical supply resilience and local production challenges [ 3 – 4 ], documented causes of biologics scale-up and inspection failures, and expert-informed assessment of translational bottlenecks commonly observed in emerging biomanufacturing ecosystems. Inclusion of governance and lifecycle-related risks reflects the role of pharmaceutical quality systems and lifecycle management in sustaining commercial performance [ 10 – 11 ]. FMEA Scoring and Risk Prioritization Each failure mode was evaluated using three standard FMEA dimensions on a 10-point ordinal scale: Severity (S)—impact on commercialization, inspection outcome, or supply continuity if the failure occurs; Probability (P)—likelihood of occurrence under prevailing ecosystem conditions; and Detectability (D)—likelihood that the failure would be identified before causing significant regulatory or commercial impact. Scores were assigned using expert qualitative judgment anchored to published evidence from pharmaceutical engineering, quality risk management, and supply-chain studies [ 1 – 2 , 5 – 6 ]. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated as: RPN = S×P×D To enhance transparency and reproducibility, each score was accompanied by a literature-backed justification within the FMEA tables, supporting relationships between severity, observed occurrence patterns, and typical failure-detection timing in biologics manufacturing and regulatory practice. Development of Mitigation Strategies Mitigation strategies were developed in parallel with failure-mode identification. Each mitigation was designed to reduce probability by altering ecosystem structure or incentives and/or to improve detectability through earlier monitoring, coordination, or regulatory engagement. Mitigations integrate established pharmaceutical engineering practices—such as shared facilities, standardized process platforms, and mock inspections—with ecosystem-level mechanisms including milestone-based funding, pooled procurement, and cross-institutional coordination [ 2 – 3 , 12 ]. Ranking, Pareto Analysis, and Interpretation All parameters from both domains were pooled and ranked in descending order of RPN. A Pareto analysis was performed to identify parameters contributing disproportionately to cumulative ecosystem risk and to visualize how mid- and lower-RPN factors create latent structural vulnerability. RPN values were interpreted using a three-tier framework: critical risks (RPN > 350), structural risks (RPN 200–350), and latent risks (RPN < 200). This interpretation directly informed the Results, Discussion, and phased mitigation roadmap. Methodological Considerations and Limitations FMEA scoring relies on expert-informed qualitative assessment, as recommended for complex systems lacking comprehensive quantitative datasets [ 6 ]. While subjective, transparency is enhanced through explicit scoring logic and literature-anchored justification. Future work may refine the framework using quantitative indicators as longitudinal ecosystem performance data become available. RESULTS Ecosystem-Level Risk Landscape Identified by FMEA Application of the adapted ecosystem-level FMEA framework identified 23 distinct failure modes distributed across two tightly coupled domains: operational manufacturing readiness (Table I) and governance, funding, and regulatory architecture (Table II). Together, these parameters represent the necessary conditions for translating biologics research activity into inspection-ready GMP manufacturing and sustained commercial supply. Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) ranged from 120 to 504, with a mean of approximately 258 and a median of 210. Rather than being dominated by a single extreme outlier, the RPN distribution showed broad clustering in the 200–300 range, indicating that ecosystem fragility arises from multiple interacting weaknesses rather than a single bottleneck. When aggregated by domain, operational manufacturing readiness accounted for approximately 56% of cumulative ecosystem risk, while governance, funding, and regulatory architecture contributed 44%. This near parity quantitatively demonstrates that biologics commercialization outcomes are shaped as much by institutional design and policy execution as by technical manufacturing capability. Table I. Ecosytem-Level FMEA for Biologics Manufacturing Capability Parameter Failure Mode S Severity Justification P Occurrence Justification D Detectability Justification RPN Mitigation Strategy Pilot-scale & GMP-ready development No pilot-to-GMP continuity 9 Prevents transition from R&D to GMP readiness [ 2 , 5 ] 8 Recurrent bottleneck in emerging ecosystems [ 3 – 4 ] 7 Typically detected only at tech-transfer or scale-up stages [ 1 – 2 ] 504 Shared GMP-ready development facilities with modular deployable GMP units. GMP manufacturing capacity Insufficient domestic GMP capacity 9 Limits supply security and export readiness [ 1 , 5 ] 8 Frequently reported in national biologics programs [ 3 ] 6 Often recognized after late-stage clinical commitment [17] 432 PPP GMP hubs with multi-user capacity reservation. Workforce readiness Lack of GMP-experienced staff 10 Workforce capability is primary determinant of GMP compliance [ 1 – 2 ] 7 Documented skills gap in EMs [ 3 ] 6 Typically identified during inspection or validation [ 1 – 2 ] 420 Simulation-based national GMP certification programs. Supply-chain resilience Import dependency for inputs 9 Production interruption halts supply [ 3 ] 9 Structural dependency in EMs [ 4 ] 5 Detected at procurement shortage stage [ 4 ] 405 Stockpiles + pooled procurement + local co-manufacturing. Single-use systems access Limited SU availability 8 SU shortages directly stop manufacturing [ 1 ] 7 Observed during global supply disruptions [ 3 ] 5 Detected at production scheduling [ 2 ] 280 Local SU assembly, refurbishing, reserves. Facility utilization efficiency Under-utilized assets 7 Raises COGS and threatens sustainability [ 2 ] 6 Common in single-project facilities [ 3 ] 5 Visible only after operations begin [ 4 ] 210 National capacity-sharing platform. Maintenance & engineering capability Poor equipment maintenance 7 Leads to deviations and downtime [ 2 ] 6 Common in new facilities [ 3 ] 5 Detected after failure events [ 1 ] 210 Central GMP engineering support and preventive maintenance. Process platform standardization Project-specific processes 8 Increases variability and scale-up time 5 Academic-origin processes [ 3 ] 5 Detected during validation runs [ 2 ] 200 Pre-validated standardized process platforms. Cold chain & logistics Weak biologics cold chain 8 Stability and compliance risk [ 1 ] 5 Frequent logistics gap [ 4 ] 5 Detected post-distribution excursions [ 1 ] 200 Validated national cold-chain network. Analytical & QC readiness Limited analytics capacity 8 Blocks regulatory approval [ 1 ] 5 Typical underinvestment [ 3 ] 4 Detected during dossier preparation [ 5 ] 160 Shared analytical centers and method libraries. Tech-transfer governance Informal tech transfer 8 Major contributor to scale-up failure [ 2 ] 4 Weak TTO standards [ 4 ] 5 Detected late during transfer execution [ 2 ] 160 Standardized manufacturing-first tech transfer. Digital GMP maturity Paper-based records 7 Data integrity findings threaten compliance [ 1 ] 4 Legacy practice in early facilities [ 3 ] 5 Identified during inspections [ 1 ] 140 Electronic batch records and digital traceability. Table II. Governance, Public Institutions, Funding, and Regulatory Failure Modes Parameter Failure Mode S Severity Justification P Occurrence Justification D Detectability Justification RPN Mitigation Strategy National biologics strategy Fragmented / non-binding 9 Disrupts long-term industrial programs [ 3 ] 8 Recurrent in multi-ministry systems [ 4 ] 6 Identified after program delay or failure [ 3 , 8 ] 432 Legally mandated national biologics program. Funding continuity Short-term project funding 8 Interrupts long-cycle development [ 3 ] 8 Common in annual public funding cycles [ 4 ] 6 Seen after sunk investments [ 9 ] 384 Multi-year milestone-based funding. Early regulatory engagement Late regulator interaction 8 Causes redesign and approval delay [ 5 ] 6 Frequent in first-time developers [ 2 ] 7 Detected at pre-approval stage [ 1 ] 336 Early scientific advice and regulatory sandbox pathways. Inspection readiness Inconsistent GMP preparedness 8 Blocks export and approval [ 1 ] 6 Moderate frequency in new facilities [ 3 ] 6 Detected during inspection [ 1 – 2 ] 288 Routine mock inspections and readiness simulations. Public procurement Lack of anchor demand 8 Undermines facility economic viability [ 3 ] 6 Common in early biologics markets [ 4 ] 5 Seen post-launch via low utilization [17] 240 Advance purchase and regional demand aggregation. Inter-ministerial coordination Siloed mandates 7 Causes duplication and delays [ 4 ] 6 Typical in public programs [ 3 ] 5 Observed through implementation lag [ 8 ] 210 Formal cross-ministry coordination. Policy execution speed Slow approvals 7 Missed market windows [ 3 ] 6 Common bureaucratic delay 4 Visible early in program timelines [ 4 ] 168 Fast-track biologics execution authority. Ecosystem trust & collaboration Weak public–private trust 6 Poor knowledge sharing [ 4 ] 5 Moderate occurrence 5 Seen qualitatively in ecosystem performance [ 3 ] 150 Neutral ecosystem orchestrator. KPI alignment Research-centric metrics 6 Weakens commercialization 6 Common in academia 4 Seen during performance review 144 KPIs tied to manufacturing readiness. Regulatory science capacity Limited biologics expertise 7 Slows review quality [ 3 ] 5 Seen in EM regulators 4 Observed via long review timelines 140 Regulator training and secondments. Leadership continuity Political turnover 6 Causes restart of programs [ 4 ] 5 Moderate 4 Seen after transitions 120 Independent advisory governance. High-Risk Failure Modes Affecting Commercialization The highest RPN values were concentrated at critical transition points between research, development, and commercial manufacturing. Within the operational domain, the most significant risks included lack of pilot-to-GMP continuity, insufficient domestic GMP capacity, workforce readiness gaps, and supply-chain resilience for critical inputs. These failure modes directly constrain the ability to scale processes, pass inspections, and sustain production once development programs advance toward commercialization. Within the governance and regulatory domain, fragmented national strategy, short-term project-based funding, delayed regulatory engagement, and inconsistent inspection readiness exhibited RPN values comparable to core manufacturing constraints. These risks do not arise directly from shop-floor execution but substantially influence the probability and detectability of operational failures by shaping incentives, timelines, and coordination across the ecosystem. Pareto Analysis of Ecosystem Risk Concentration Figure I presents the Pareto distribution of RPN values across all evaluated parameters. Approximately 20–25% of the failure modes accounted for nearly 80% of cumulative ecosystem risk, consistent with Pareto patterns observed in complex healthcare and supply-chain systems. The parameters contributing most strongly to cumulative risk included pilot-to-GMP development continuity, GMP manufacturing capacity, workforce readiness, supply-chain resilience, national strategy coherence, funding continuity, and early regulatory engagement. These high-RPN failure modes represent immediate barriers to commercialization and disproportionately determine ecosystem performance. However, the cumulative risk curve exhibited a gradual slope rather than a sharp plateau, indicating that mid- and lower-RPN parameters collectively contribute substantial latent vulnerability. Factors such as facility utilization efficiency, process platform standardization, digital GMP maturity, KPI alignment, ecosystem coordination, and regulatory science capacity did not individually dominate risk but together influence scalability, inspection outcomes, cost efficiency, and long-term sustainability. Figure I . Pareto analysis of ecosystem-level failure modes ranked by Risk Priority Number (RPN) Interdependence Between Operational and Institutional Risks Cross-domain analysis revealed strong interdependence between operational and governance-related failure modes. Pilot-to-GMP discontinuity was closely linked to funding architecture and asset ownership models. Workforce readiness was influenced by performance metrics, industry–academia mobility, and timing of regulatory engagement. Supply-chain resilience depended not only on technical sourcing strategies but also on procurement policy and coordination mechanisms. Inspection readiness reflected both GMP execution and the depth of regulator–developer interaction. These interdependencies indicate that addressing operational constraints without concurrent reform of governance and funding structures is unlikely to reduce overall ecosystem risk. Similarly, policy reforms that are not grounded in operational manufacturing realities fail to translate into improved commercialization outcomes. Three-Tier Risk Structure Interpretation of RPN rankings and Pareto results supported a practical three-tier ecosystem risk structure: Critical risks (RPN > 350): Immediate barriers to commercialization requiring urgent intervention. Structural risks (RPN 200–350): Determinants of scalability, efficiency, and sustainability. Latent risks (RPN < 200): Long-term ecosystem weaknesses affecting learning, coordination, and cost performance. Retention of mid- and lower-RPN parameters in the main analysis was essential for revealing this layered structure and for avoiding overemphasis on short-term bottlenecks at the expense of long-term ecosystem performance. Implications for Mitigation Sequencing The ecosystem-level risk topology identified through FMEA indicates that mitigation must follow a phased sequence. Immediate actions should stabilize high-RPN transition points—such as pilot-to-GMP continuity, workforce capability, supply-chain buffering, funding continuity, and inspection preparedness—before capital-intensive structural interventions are pursued. Once acute bottlenecks are addressed, ecosystem-level redesign measures targeting structural and latent risks become effective, forming the basis for sustained biologics manufacturing and commercialization. DISCUSSIONS The results of this study demonstrate that barriers to biologics commercialization in emerging economies do not arise from isolated technical deficiencies but from a layered ecosystem risk structure in which operational manufacturing readiness and governance–regulatory architecture contribute comparably to overall exposure. This finding reinforces quality risk–management theory, which emphasizes that failures in complex systems most often occur at the interfaces between technical execution, organizational coordination, and policy design rather than within individual processes or facilities alone [ 5 – 6 ]. The adapted ecosystem-level FMEA framework reveals that biologics manufacturing outcomes are determined by the alignment—or misalignment—of infrastructure, workforce capability, funding continuity, regulatory timing, and supply-chain resilience. Importantly, these elements interact dynamically: weaknesses in one domain amplify vulnerabilities in others. As a result, interventions targeting single components, such as facility construction or research funding, are unlikely to yield sustainable commercialization without complementary ecosystem-level reform. The highest Risk Priority Numbers were concentrated at transition points between research, development, and commercial manufacturing. Pilot-to-GMP continuity, GMP manufacturing capacity, workforce readiness, and supply-chain resilience emerged as the most severe and recurrent operational risks, consistent with pharmaceutical engineering analyses of biologics scale-up failure points [ 1 – 2 , 13 ]. However, these operational risks are not purely technical in nature. Pilot-to-GMP discontinuity frequently reflects fragmented asset ownership and short-term funding structures, while workforce readiness gaps are driven by misaligned incentives and delayed regulatory engagement. Supply-chain fragility similarly reflects procurement policy and coordination mechanisms, aligning with prior work on supplier risk propagation [ 14 ]. Governance, funding, and regulatory parameters exhibited RPN values comparable to manufacturing constraints, underscoring their role as commercialization determinants. Fragmented strategy, short-term funding, and delayed regulatory engagement directly influence whether manufacturing capacity can be translated into market-approved products. These findings align with WHO GMP guidance emphasizing system-wide quality culture and inspection preparedness [ 15 ]. Pareto analysis demonstrated that approximately one quarter of parameters account for the majority of cumulative ecosystem risk, while a long tail of mid- and lower-RPN factors—such as digital GMP maturity, KPI alignment, and ecosystem trust—create latent vulnerability. These latent risks progressively erode scalability and learning capacity if unaddressed. Cross-domain analysis confirmed that operational and institutional risks are tightly coupled. Infrastructure investments without regulatory preparedness and workforce capability often result in underutilized assets, while policy reforms without manufacturing depth fail to translate into production outcomes. Similar conclusions are reflected in WHO frameworks on local pharmaceutical production emphasizing coordinated policy, regulation, and demand [ 16 ]. The FMEA-derived three-tier risk structure—critical, structural, and latent—provides a practical decision framework for sequencing interventions. Short-term actions should stabilize high-RPN transition points without requiring large capital investments, such as establishing pilot-to-GMP continuity, accelerating workforce readiness through inspection-simulation training, institutionalizing early regulatory engagement, and converting short-term grants into milestone-based funding (Figure II). Once these acute bottlenecks are stabilized, medium- to long-term structural interventions become effective. These include shared GMP-ready development centers, public–private manufacturing hubs, national training and certification institutes, regional pooling of critical inputs, regulatory sandbox mechanisms, and digital GMP infrastructure. Together, these measures address both dominant and latent risks, improving scalability, resilience, and institutional learning. Figure II. Phase implementation roadmap derived from ecosystem-level FMEA findings By extending FMEA to the ecosystem level, this study provides a reproducible framework integrating manufacturing engineering, regulatory science, and policy coordination. The approach offers practical value for governments, regulators, investors, and industry leaders seeking to build resilient, inspection-ready biologics manufacturing ecosystems. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that barriers to biologics commercialization in emerging economies arise not from isolated technical limitations but from a layered ecosystem risk structure in which operational manufacturing readiness and governance–regulatory architecture contribute comparably to overall exposure. By adapting Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to the ecosystem level, this work provides a transparent and reproducible method for identifying, ranking, and prioritizing systemic failure modes that prevent research capability from translating into sustained GMP manufacturing and market supply. The results show that the highest risks occur at critical transition points—pilot-to-GMP continuity, GMP capacity, workforce readiness, supply-chain resilience, strategy coherence, funding continuity, regulatory engagement, and inspection preparedness. Pareto analysis further reveals that while a limited number of parameters dominate overall risk, numerous mid- and lower-RPN factors create latent structural vulnerabilities affecting long-term scalability, cost efficiency, and institutional learning. Infrastructure investment alone is insufficient unless accompanied by funding continuity, regulatory timing, workforce development, and institutional coordination. The phased mitigation roadmap derived from the FMEA results illustrates how short-term system stabilization and long-term ecosystem redesign must proceed sequentially to reduce commercialization risk effectively. Ultimately, this work shows that achieving reliable biologics production is not primarily a question of scientific capability or facility construction, but of ecosystem coherence, and that ecosystem-level FMEA offers a practical method to design that coherence. Abbreviations API Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient CAPEX Capital Expenditure CDMO Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization COGS Cost of Goods Sold CTD Common Technical Document EBR Electronic Batch Record EM Emerging Market FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis FX Foreign Exchange GMP Good Manufacturing Practice ICH International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use IEC International Electrotechnical Commission ISPE International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering KPI Key Performance Indicator NIIMBL National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PD Process Development PPP Public–Private Partnership QC Quality Control QMS Quality Management System R&D Research and Development RPN Risk Priority Number SOP Standard Operating Procedure SU Single-Use (systems or components) TTO Technology Transfer Office WHO World Health Organization Declarations Author contribution DO collected and analyzed data, and wrote manuscript Human and animal rights and informed consent This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Conflict of interest : The authors declare no competing interests. Funding: No funding was received References U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing Practice Regulations. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2006. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE). Risk-Based Approach to Pharmaceutical Manufacturing. Tampa, FL: ISPE; 2017. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Strengthening the Resilience of Pharmaceutical Supply Chains. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. World Bank Group. Local Production of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Products: Opportunities and Challenges. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020. International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Q9 (R1): Quality Risk Management. Geneva: ICH; 2023. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC 60812:2018 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA and FMECA). Geneva: IEC; 2018. Reiling JG, Knutzen BL, Stoecklein M, Fiedler J, Hoffer J. Applying healthcare failure mode and effects analysis: A useful tool for risk identification and prevention. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003;29(10):517–31. Tang CS. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int J Prod Econ. 2006;103(2):451–88. Stamatis DH. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality; 2003. International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements. for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System. Geneva: ICH; 2008. International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Q12: Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management. Geneva: ICH; 2019. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Process Validation: General Principles and Practices. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2011. McKinsey. Company. Biopharma Manufacturing: Building Resilience and Flexibility. McKinsey Healthcare Insights; 2020. Blackhurst J, Scheibe KP, Johnson DJ. Supplier risk assessment and monitoring for the protection of supply chains. Int J Prod Res. 2011;49(2):353–73. World Health Organization. WHO Technical Report Series No. 961: Good Manufacturing Practices for Pharmaceutical Products. Geneva: WHO; 2011. World Health Organization. Local Production for Access to Medical Products: Developing a Framework to Improve Public Health. Geneva: WHO; 2020. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9108111","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":607480560,"identity":"8d49d858-b73d-47cd-bd66-f2447cef7158","order_by":0,"name":"Dogan Ornek","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Boston Institute of Biotechnology, LLC","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dogan","middleName":"","lastName":"Ornek","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-12 20:23:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9108111/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9108111/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104920059,"identity":"0d26b49a-6122-488f-81ab-f4a2f75cf222","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 17:17:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":151350,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePareto analysis of ecosystem-level failure modes ranked by Risk Priority Number (RPN)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9108111/v1/bf0a2a24d663c39d38ca82f0.png"},{"id":104920060,"identity":"f41473d1-d805-4a7b-a25d-dbec22e4c2fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 17:17:43","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":87262,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePhase implementation roadmap derived from ecosystem-level FMEA findings\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9108111/v1/46cae837df058148e340ca0f.png"},{"id":105034702,"identity":"44a590ba-929e-4d60-b9c3-854f3eb50a92","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 07:23:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1142023,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9108111/v1/f58a23cd-b397-4da8-9cde-a618da637419.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Ecosystem-Level Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for Sustainable Biologics Manufacturing in Emerging Economies","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eBiologic medicines now account for a growing share of global pharmaceutical value, driven by their central role in oncology, immunology, rare diseases, and advanced therapeutics. Unlike small-molecule drugs, biologics require living systems, tightly controlled manufacturing environments, advanced analytical characterization, and highly skilled Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) operations to ensure safety, efficacy, and product consistency. As a result, manufacturing capability\u0026mdash;not discovery alone\u0026mdash;has become a primary determinant of commercial success and supply security in the biopharmaceutical sector [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent global disruptions, including pandemics, geopolitical tensions, logistics constraints, and shortages of critical raw materials, have highlighted the commercial and strategic risks associated with geographically concentrated biologics manufacturing. International policy and industry analyses increasingly emphasize the need for resilient, regionally distributed biomanufacturing capacity to ensure continuity of supply, reduce dependency risks, and enable market participation by emerging economies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. In response, many emerging economies have invested heavily in biotechnology research, academic excellence, and laboratory-scale infrastructure as part of national life-sciences strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these investments, commercial outcomes have lagged behind scientific output. Many emerging economies with strong research capacity continue to face persistent challenges in translating development-stage biologics into inspection-ready GMP manufacturing and sustained market supply. This translational gap represents a critical commercialization failure, limiting return on public investment, discouraging private capital, and constraining participation in global biopharmaceutical value chains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting analyses typically approach this challenge through isolated lenses\u0026mdash;such as workforce development, facility investment, regulatory reform, or funding mechanisms\u0026mdash;without explaining how these elements interact to shape commercialization outcomes. However, pharmaceutical engineering experience consistently shows that biologics development failures occur most frequently at interfaces between process development, scale-up, quality systems, organizational coordination, and regulatory engagement rather than within individual unit operations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Quality risk-management guidance similarly emphasizes that complex failures are rooted in system design weaknesses, not discrete technical deficiencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile risk-based methodologies are well established at the facility level\u0026mdash;for process validation, quality systems, and inspection preparedness\u0026mdash;there is limited methodological guidance for evaluating commercialization risk at the ecosystem level. At this level, infrastructure, workforce capability, governance structures, funding continuity, regulatory timing, and supply-chain resilience collectively determine whether biologics can progress from late-stage development to sustained commercial manufacturing. In practice, the absence of a systems framework often leads decision-makers to prioritize visible assets, such as GMP facilities, while underestimating less visible but commercially decisive factors including pilot-to-GMP continuity, inspection readiness, technology-transfer governance, and inter-institutional coordination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) provides a structured, transparent approach for analyzing risk in complex systems. Originally developed for engineering reliability and later adopted across healthcare and pharmaceutical quality management, FMEA enables systematic identification of failure modes, estimation of their relative impact, and prioritization of mitigation strategies [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Although traditionally applied to processes and equipment, the logic of FMEA is well suited to commercialization systems involving multiple actors, incentives, and regulatory dependencies, making it particularly relevant to biopharmaceutical ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, FMEA is adapted from a process-level quality tool to an ecosystem-level analytical framework for biologics manufacturing commercialization in emerging economies. Rather than evaluating a single facility, the approach identifies and ranks systemic failure modes that prevent research activity from progressing to GMP readiness, regulatory approval, and sustained market supply. By integrating operational manufacturing readiness with governance, funding, and regulatory architecture, the framework provides a commercially relevant, decision-oriented view of ecosystem risk.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe objectives of this study are to:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eidentify ecosystem-level failure modes that constrain biologics commercialization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003equantify and rank their relative impact using an adapted FMEA methodology\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003evisualize risk concentration through Pareto analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003emap actionable mitigation strategies and phased implementation priorities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe contribution of this work is practical and directly aligned with the mission of Journal of Commercial Biotechnology. Rather than assessing whether emerging economies possess scientific capability, the study addresses whether they possess the integrated, inspection-ready, and investment-viable ecosystems required for sustainable biologics manufacturing and commercialization.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Design and Analytical Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study applies an adapted Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) framework to assess risks constraining biologics commercialization at the ecosystem level in emerging economies. While FMEA is traditionally used for process-, equipment-, and quality-system risk assessment, it has been successfully extended to complex healthcare and supply-chain environments in which technical, organizational, and policy factors interact [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Here, FMEA is purposefully scaled from a facility-level quality tool to a systems-level analytical method capturing how infrastructure, workforce capability, supply chains, governance, funding continuity, and regulatory timing jointly determine whether research capability can be translated into inspection-ready GMP manufacturing and sustained market supply.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSystem Boundary and Unit of Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe unit of analysis is the biologics manufacturing ecosystem, defined as the interconnected capabilities required to progress from late-stage development through GMP readiness to commercial production. The system boundary includes: (i) process scale-up and technology transfer; (ii) GMP operations and inspection preparedness; (iii) workforce competence and engineering support; (iv) analytical and digital quality systems; (v) supply-chain robustness for critical inputs; and (vi) governance, funding, and regulatory conditions enabling commercialization. This boundary reflects quality risk-management guidance emphasizing that failures in complex systems arise at interfaces between technical execution and organizational control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStructuring and Identification of Failure Modes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFailure modes were structured into two analytically distinct but interdependent domains:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperational manufacturing readiness, encompassing infrastructure, workforce, process capability, analytics, digital maturity, maintenance, supply chain, and technology transfer; and\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance, funding, and regulatory architecture, encompassing strategy coherence, funding continuity, regulatory engagement, inspection readiness, coordination mechanisms, and execution culture.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA failure mode was defined as a structural or operational condition increasing the likelihood of delayed GMP readiness, regulatory non-compliance, elevated cost of goods, or inability to sustain commercial biologics production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Failure modes were identified through synthesis of pharmaceutical GMP and quality-system guidance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], international analyses of pharmaceutical supply resilience and local production challenges [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], documented causes of biologics scale-up and inspection failures, and expert-informed assessment of translational bottlenecks commonly observed in emerging biomanufacturing ecosystems. Inclusion of governance and lifecycle-related risks reflects the role of pharmaceutical quality systems and lifecycle management in sustaining commercial performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFMEA Scoring and Risk Prioritization\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach failure mode was evaluated using three standard FMEA dimensions on a 10-point ordinal scale: Severity (S)\u0026mdash;impact on commercialization, inspection outcome, or supply continuity if the failure occurs; Probability (P)\u0026mdash;likelihood of occurrence under prevailing ecosystem conditions; and Detectability (D)\u0026mdash;likelihood that the failure would be identified before causing significant regulatory or commercial impact. Scores were assigned using expert qualitative judgment anchored to published evidence from pharmaceutical engineering, quality risk management, and supply-chain studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated as:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRPN = S×P×D\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo enhance transparency and reproducibility, each score was accompanied by a literature-backed justification within the FMEA tables, supporting relationships between severity, observed occurrence patterns, and typical failure-detection timing in biologics manufacturing and regulatory practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDevelopment of Mitigation Strategies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMitigation strategies were developed in parallel with failure-mode identification. Each mitigation was designed to reduce probability by altering ecosystem structure or incentives and/or to improve detectability through earlier monitoring, coordination, or regulatory engagement. Mitigations integrate established pharmaceutical engineering practices\u0026mdash;such as shared facilities, standardized process platforms, and mock inspections\u0026mdash;with ecosystem-level mechanisms including milestone-based funding, pooled procurement, and cross-institutional coordination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRanking, Pareto Analysis, and Interpretation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll parameters from both domains were pooled and ranked in descending order of RPN. A Pareto analysis was performed to identify parameters contributing disproportionately to cumulative ecosystem risk and to visualize how mid- and lower-RPN factors create latent structural vulnerability. RPN values were interpreted using a three-tier framework: critical risks (RPN\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;350), structural risks (RPN 200\u0026ndash;350), and latent risks (RPN\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;200). This interpretation directly informed the Results, Discussion, and phased mitigation roadmap.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMethodological Considerations and Limitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFMEA scoring relies on expert-informed qualitative assessment, as recommended for complex systems lacking comprehensive quantitative datasets [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. While subjective, transparency is enhanced through explicit scoring logic and literature-anchored justification. Future work may refine the framework using quantitative indicators as longitudinal ecosystem performance data become available.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEcosystem-Level Risk Landscape Identified by FMEA\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplication of the adapted ecosystem-level FMEA framework identified 23 distinct failure modes distributed across two tightly coupled domains: operational manufacturing readiness (Table I) and governance, funding, and regulatory architecture (Table II). Together, these parameters represent the necessary conditions for translating biologics research activity into inspection-ready GMP manufacturing and sustained commercial supply.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk Priority Numbers (RPNs) ranged from 120 to 504, with a mean of approximately 258 and a median of 210. Rather than being dominated by a single extreme outlier, the RPN distribution showed broad clustering in the 200\u0026ndash;300 range, indicating that ecosystem fragility arises from multiple interacting weaknesses rather than a single bottleneck.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen aggregated by domain, operational manufacturing readiness accounted for approximately 56% of cumulative ecosystem risk, while governance, funding, and regulatory architecture contributed 44%. This near parity quantitatively demonstrates that biologics commercialization outcomes are shaped as much by institutional design and policy execution as by technical manufacturing capability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTable I.\u003c/b\u003e Ecosytem-Level FMEA for Biologics Manufacturing Capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParameter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure Mode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeverity Justification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOccurrence Justification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetectability Justification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRPN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMitigation Strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePilot-scale \u0026amp; GMP-ready development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo pilot-to-GMP continuity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevents transition from R\u0026amp;D to GMP readiness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecurrent bottleneck in emerging ecosystems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypically detected only at tech-transfer or scale-up stages [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e504\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShared GMP-ready development facilities with modular deployable GMP units.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGMP manufacturing capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsufficient domestic GMP capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimits supply security and export readiness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequently reported in national biologics programs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOften recognized after late-stage clinical commitment [17]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e432\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePPP GMP hubs with multi-user capacity reservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkforce readiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of GMP-experienced staff\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkforce capability is primary determinant of GMP compliance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDocumented skills gap in EMs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypically identified during inspection or validation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e420\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimulation-based national GMP certification programs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupply-chain resilience\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImport dependency for inputs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduction interruption halts supply [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural dependency in EMs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected at procurement shortage stage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e405\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStockpiles\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;pooled procurement\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;local co-manufacturing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSingle-use systems access\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited SU availability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSU shortages directly stop manufacturing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObserved during global supply disruptions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected at production scheduling [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal SU assembly, refurbishing, reserves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFacility utilization efficiency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder-utilized assets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRaises COGS and threatens sustainability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon in single-project facilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisible only after operations begin [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational capacity-sharing platform.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaintenance \u0026amp; engineering capability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor equipment maintenance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeads to deviations and downtime [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon in new facilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected after failure events [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentral GMP engineering support and preventive maintenance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProcess platform standardization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProject-specific processes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncreases variability and scale-up time\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcademic-origin processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected during validation runs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-validated standardized process platforms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCold chain \u0026amp; logistics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak biologics cold chain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStability and compliance risk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequent logistics gap [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected post-distribution excursions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValidated national cold-chain network.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytical \u0026amp; QC readiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited analytics capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlocks regulatory approval [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypical underinvestment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected during dossier preparation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e160\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShared analytical centers and method libraries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTech-transfer governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal tech transfer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMajor contributor to scale-up failure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak TTO standards [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected late during transfer execution [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e160\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStandardized manufacturing-first tech transfer.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital GMP maturity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePaper-based records\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData integrity findings threaten compliance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegacy practice in early facilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentified during inspections [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElectronic batch records and digital traceability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTable II.\u003c/b\u003e Governance, Public Institutions, Funding, and Regulatory Failure Modes\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParameter\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFailure Mode\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeverity Justification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOccurrence Justification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetectability Justification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRPN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMitigation Strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational biologics strategy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFragmented / non-binding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDisrupts long-term industrial programs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecurrent in multi-ministry systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIdentified after program delay or failure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e432\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegally mandated national biologics program.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunding continuity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShort-term project funding\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterrupts long-cycle development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon in annual public funding cycles [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeen after sunk investments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e384\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMulti-year milestone-based funding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarly regulatory engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLate regulator interaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCauses redesign and approval delay [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequent in first-time developers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected at pre-approval stage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e336\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEarly scientific advice and regulatory sandbox pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInspection readiness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInconsistent GMP preparedness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlocks export and approval [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate frequency in new facilities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDetected during inspection [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e288\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoutine mock inspections and readiness simulations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic procurement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLack of anchor demand\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUndermines facility economic viability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon in early biologics markets [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeen post-launch via low utilization [17]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e240\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvance purchase and regional demand aggregation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInter-ministerial coordination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSiloed mandates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCauses duplication and delays [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTypical in public programs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObserved through implementation lag [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e210\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormal cross-ministry coordination.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy execution speed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlow approvals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMissed market windows [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon bureaucratic delay\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisible early in program timelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e168\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFast-track biologics execution authority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcosystem trust \u0026amp; collaboration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeak public\u0026ndash;private trust\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePoor knowledge sharing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate occurrence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeen qualitatively in ecosystem performance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeutral ecosystem orchestrator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKPI alignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch-centric metrics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWeakens commercialization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommon in academia\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeen during performance review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e144\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKPIs tied to manufacturing readiness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory science capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited biologics expertise\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlows review quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeen in EM regulators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eObserved via long review timelines\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e140\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulator training and secondments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeadership continuity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolitical turnover\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCauses restart of programs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeen after transitions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndependent advisory governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHigh-Risk Failure Modes Affecting Commercialization\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe highest RPN values were concentrated at critical transition points between research, development, and commercial manufacturing. Within the operational domain, the most significant risks included lack of pilot-to-GMP continuity, insufficient domestic GMP capacity, workforce readiness gaps, and supply-chain resilience for critical inputs. These failure modes directly constrain the ability to scale processes, pass inspections, and sustain production once development programs advance toward commercialization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the governance and regulatory domain, fragmented national strategy, short-term project-based funding, delayed regulatory engagement, and inconsistent inspection readiness exhibited RPN values comparable to core manufacturing constraints. These risks do not arise directly from shop-floor execution but substantially influence the probability and detectability of operational failures by shaping incentives, timelines, and coordination across the ecosystem.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePareto Analysis of Ecosystem Risk Concentration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure I presents the Pareto distribution of RPN values across all evaluated parameters. Approximately 20\u0026ndash;25% of the failure modes accounted for nearly 80% of cumulative ecosystem risk, consistent with Pareto patterns observed in complex healthcare and supply-chain systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe parameters contributing most strongly to cumulative risk included pilot-to-GMP development continuity, GMP manufacturing capacity, workforce readiness, supply-chain resilience, national strategy coherence, funding continuity, and early regulatory engagement. These high-RPN failure modes represent immediate barriers to commercialization and disproportionately determine ecosystem performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the cumulative risk curve exhibited a gradual slope rather than a sharp plateau, indicating that mid- and lower-RPN parameters collectively contribute substantial latent vulnerability. Factors such as facility utilization efficiency, process platform standardization, digital GMP maturity, KPI alignment, ecosystem coordination, and regulatory science capacity did not individually dominate risk but together influence scalability, inspection outcomes, cost efficiency, and long-term sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv description=\"\" class=\"Drawing\" id=\"1715076322\" name=\"Picture 4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFigure I\u003c/b\u003e. Pareto analysis of ecosystem-level failure modes ranked by Risk Priority Number (RPN)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInterdependence Between Operational and Institutional Risks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCross-domain analysis revealed strong interdependence between operational and governance-related failure modes. Pilot-to-GMP discontinuity was closely linked to funding architecture and asset ownership models. Workforce readiness was influenced by performance metrics, industry\u0026ndash;academia mobility, and timing of regulatory engagement. Supply-chain resilience depended not only on technical sourcing strategies but also on procurement policy and coordination mechanisms. Inspection readiness reflected both GMP execution and the depth of regulator\u0026ndash;developer interaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese interdependencies indicate that addressing operational constraints without concurrent reform of governance and funding structures is unlikely to reduce overall ecosystem risk. Similarly, policy reforms that are not grounded in operational manufacturing realities fail to translate into improved commercialization outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThree-Tier Risk Structure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation of RPN rankings and Pareto results supported a practical three-tier ecosystem risk structure:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritical risks (RPN\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;350): Immediate barriers to commercialization requiring urgent intervention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural risks (RPN 200\u0026ndash;350): Determinants of scalability, efficiency, and sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLatent risks (RPN\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;200): Long-term ecosystem weaknesses affecting learning, coordination, and cost performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRetention of mid- and lower-RPN parameters in the main analysis was essential for revealing this layered structure and for avoiding overemphasis on short-term bottlenecks at the expense of long-term ecosystem performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Mitigation Sequencing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ecosystem-level risk topology identified through FMEA indicates that mitigation must follow a phased sequence. Immediate actions should stabilize high-RPN transition points\u0026mdash;such as pilot-to-GMP continuity, workforce capability, supply-chain buffering, funding continuity, and inspection preparedness\u0026mdash;before capital-intensive structural interventions are pursued. Once acute bottlenecks are addressed, ecosystem-level redesign measures targeting structural and latent risks become effective, forming the basis for sustained biologics manufacturing and commercialization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study demonstrate that barriers to biologics commercialization in emerging economies do not arise from isolated technical deficiencies but from a layered ecosystem risk structure in which operational manufacturing readiness and governance\u0026ndash;regulatory architecture contribute comparably to overall exposure. This finding reinforces quality risk\u0026ndash;management theory, which emphasizes that failures in complex systems most often occur at the interfaces between technical execution, organizational coordination, and policy design rather than within individual processes or facilities alone [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe adapted ecosystem-level FMEA framework reveals that biologics manufacturing outcomes are determined by the alignment\u0026mdash;or misalignment\u0026mdash;of infrastructure, workforce capability, funding continuity, regulatory timing, and supply-chain resilience. Importantly, these elements interact dynamically: weaknesses in one domain amplify vulnerabilities in others. As a result, interventions targeting single components, such as facility construction or research funding, are unlikely to yield sustainable commercialization without complementary ecosystem-level reform.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe highest Risk Priority Numbers were concentrated at transition points between research, development, and commercial manufacturing. Pilot-to-GMP continuity, GMP manufacturing capacity, workforce readiness, and supply-chain resilience emerged as the most severe and recurrent operational risks, consistent with pharmaceutical engineering analyses of biologics scale-up failure points [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, these operational risks are not purely technical in nature. Pilot-to-GMP discontinuity frequently reflects fragmented asset ownership and short-term funding structures, while workforce readiness gaps are driven by misaligned incentives and delayed regulatory engagement. Supply-chain fragility similarly reflects procurement policy and coordination mechanisms, aligning with prior work on supplier risk propagation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance, funding, and regulatory parameters exhibited RPN values comparable to manufacturing constraints, underscoring their role as commercialization determinants. Fragmented strategy, short-term funding, and delayed regulatory engagement directly influence whether manufacturing capacity can be translated into market-approved products. These findings align with WHO GMP guidance emphasizing system-wide quality culture and inspection preparedness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePareto analysis demonstrated that approximately one quarter of parameters account for the majority of cumulative ecosystem risk, while a long tail of mid- and lower-RPN factors\u0026mdash;such as digital GMP maturity, KPI alignment, and ecosystem trust\u0026mdash;create latent vulnerability. These latent risks progressively erode scalability and learning capacity if unaddressed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCross-domain analysis confirmed that operational and institutional risks are tightly coupled. Infrastructure investments without regulatory preparedness and workforce capability often result in underutilized assets, while policy reforms without manufacturing depth fail to translate into production outcomes. Similar conclusions are reflected in WHO frameworks on local pharmaceutical production emphasizing coordinated policy, regulation, and demand [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe FMEA-derived three-tier risk structure\u0026mdash;critical, structural, and latent\u0026mdash;provides a practical decision framework for sequencing interventions. Short-term actions should stabilize high-RPN transition points without requiring large capital investments, such as establishing pilot-to-GMP continuity, accelerating workforce readiness through inspection-simulation training, institutionalizing early regulatory engagement, and converting short-term grants into milestone-based funding (Figure II). Once these acute bottlenecks are stabilized, medium- to long-term structural interventions become effective. These include shared GMP-ready development centers, public\u0026ndash;private manufacturing hubs, national training and certification institutes, regional pooling of critical inputs, regulatory sandbox mechanisms, and digital GMP infrastructure. Together, these measures address both dominant and latent risks, improving scalability, resilience, and institutional learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFigure II.\u003c/b\u003e Phase implementation roadmap derived from ecosystem-level FMEA findings\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy extending FMEA to the ecosystem level, this study provides a reproducible framework integrating manufacturing engineering, regulatory science, and policy coordination. The approach offers practical value for governments, regulators, investors, and industry leaders seeking to build resilient, inspection-ready biologics manufacturing ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates that barriers to biologics commercialization in emerging economies arise not from isolated technical limitations but from a layered ecosystem risk structure in which operational manufacturing readiness and governance\u0026ndash;regulatory architecture contribute comparably to overall exposure. By adapting Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to the ecosystem level, this work provides a transparent and reproducible method for identifying, ranking, and prioritizing systemic failure modes that prevent research capability from translating into sustained GMP manufacturing and market supply.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results show that the highest risks occur at critical transition points\u0026mdash;pilot-to-GMP continuity, GMP capacity, workforce readiness, supply-chain resilience, strategy coherence, funding continuity, regulatory engagement, and inspection preparedness. Pareto analysis further reveals that while a limited number of parameters dominate overall risk, numerous mid- and lower-RPN factors create latent structural vulnerabilities affecting long-term scalability, cost efficiency, and institutional learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure investment alone is insufficient unless accompanied by funding continuity, regulatory timing, workforce development, and institutional coordination. The phased mitigation roadmap derived from the FMEA results illustrates how short-term system stabilization and long-term ecosystem redesign must proceed sequentially to reduce commercialization risk effectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, this work shows that achieving reliable biologics production is not primarily a question of scientific capability or facility construction, but of ecosystem coherence, and that ecosystem-level FMEA offers a practical method to design that coherence.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAPI Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCAPEX Capital Expenditure\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCDMO Contract Development and Manufacturing Organization\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCOGS Cost of Goods Sold\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCTD Common Technical Document\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEBR Electronic Batch Record\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEM Emerging Market\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMECA Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFX Foreign Exchange\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGMP Good Manufacturing Practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eICH International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIEC International Electrotechnical Commission\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eISPE International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKPI Key Performance Indicator\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNIIMBL National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePD Process Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePPP Public\u0026ndash;Private Partnership\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQC Quality Control\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQMS Quality Management System\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026amp;D Research and Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRPN Risk Priority Number\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSOP Standard Operating Procedure\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSU Single-Use (systems or components)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTTO Technology Transfer Office\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWHO World Health Organization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contribution\u003c/strong\u003e DO collected and analyzed data, and wrote manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHuman and animal rights and informed consent\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/strong\u003e: The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNo funding was received\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Food and Drug Administration. Quality Systems Approach to Pharmaceutical Current Good Manufacturing Practice Regulations. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2006.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (ISPE). Risk-Based Approach to Pharmaceutical Manufacturing. Tampa, FL: ISPE; 2017.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Strengthening the Resilience of Pharmaceutical Supply Chains. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Bank Group. Local Production of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Products: Opportunities and Challenges. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Q9 (R1): Quality Risk Management. Geneva: ICH; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC 60812:2018 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA and FMECA). Geneva: IEC; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReiling JG, Knutzen BL, Stoecklein M, Fiedler J, Hoffer J. Applying healthcare failure mode and effects analysis: A useful tool for risk identification and prevention. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003;29(10):517\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTang CS. Perspectives in supply chain risk management. Int J Prod Econ. 2006;103(2):451\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStamatis DH. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements. for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System. Geneva: ICH; 2008.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Q12: Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management. Geneva: ICH; 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eU.S. Food and Drug Administration. Process Validation: General Principles and Practices. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcKinsey. Company. Biopharma Manufacturing: Building Resilience and Flexibility. McKinsey Healthcare Insights; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlackhurst J, Scheibe KP, Johnson DJ. Supplier risk assessment and monitoring for the protection of supply chains. Int J Prod Res. 2011;49(2):353\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. WHO Technical Report Series No. 961: Good Manufacturing Practices for Pharmaceutical Products. Geneva: WHO; 2011.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. Local Production for Access to Medical Products: Developing a Framework to Improve Public Health. Geneva: WHO; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Sustainable biologics manufacturing, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), biomanufacturing ecosystem, emerging ecosystem","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9108111/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9108111/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003ePurpose\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany emerging economies possess strong biotechnology research capacity yet struggle to translate this capability into inspection-ready Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) manufacturing and sustained biologics commercialization. Existing analyses often address infrastructure, workforce, regulation, or funding in isolation, without a systems framework explaining how these elements interact to shape commercialization outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was adapted from a process-level quality tool to an ecosystem-level analytical framework spanning operational manufacturing readiness and governance\u0026ndash;regulatory architecture. Failure modes were identified from pharmaceutical engineering guidance, quality risk-management standards, and supply-chain resilience literature. Each parameter was scored for severity, probability, and detectability using literature-anchored justification. Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) were calculated, ranked, and analyzed using Pareto methods, and mitigation strategies were mapped directly to each failure mode.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis identified 23 ecosystem-level failure modes with RPNs ranging from 120 to 504. The highest risks clustered at critical transition points, including pilot-to-GMP continuity, GMP manufacturing capacity, workforce readiness, supply-chain resilience, strategy coherence, funding continuity, and early regulatory engagement. Pareto analysis showed that a limited subset of parameters accounts for most ecosystem risk, while mid- and lower-RPN factors represent latent vulnerabilities affecting scalability, inspection readiness, cost efficiency, and institutional learning. Operational and governance risks were tightly coupled.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEcosystem-level FMEA provides a transparent and transferable framework for prioritizing interventions and sequencing actions to enable sustainable biologics manufacturing in emerging economies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Ecosystem-Level Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for Sustainable Biologics Manufacturing in Emerging Economies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-18 17:17:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9108111/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"870e800d-5073-495d-b8ad-fffb31dc9083","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-10T19:38:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-18 17:17:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9108111","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9108111","identity":"rs-9108111","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}