Wilman Low on why Asia-Pacific healthcare logistics demands system-level standardization of intent, not process

When multinational healthcare companies plan their Asia-Pacific footprint, they tend to carry three assumptions into the region. The first is that regulatory expectations are broadly consistent. The second is that infrastructure readiness is comparable across markets. The third is that people and organisational capability can be standardised. Wilman Low, Head of Global Account Management, Life Sciences & Healthcare, Pharma Specialized Network, APAC DHL Supply Chain, has spent 15 years across major logistics companies watching all three. 

What makes healthcare logistics the environment in which these assumptions are costliest is the nature of failure itself. “In most supply chain environments, a missed delivery or temperature deviation is an operational issue, something that can be corrected with service recovery,” Wilman explains. “In healthcare, the same event can compromise product efficacy and ultimately affect a patient’s outcome. A courier delay that results in a few extra hours in transit might be manageable for consumer goods. In healthcare, that same delay could push a biologic out of its stability window.” 

Every shipment, in other words, is tied to someone waiting. “That changes the entire operating mindset, making the decision space much narrower: you would need to design a supply chain for continuity, resilience, and precision because the system has no meaningful tolerance for error.“

The most common version of the first assumption, that global standards create a level playing field, breaks quickly in practice. “The most common misconception is that regulatory expectations are consistent across Asia-Pacific,” Wilman says. “In reality, each of the thirteen markets has its own interpretation of goods distribution practices, regulatory requirements, and enforcement culture. An approach that is fully compliant in one country can fall short in the next. Leaders often assume regulation is the constraint, but in practice it is the variability of regulation that creates the real complexity.” 
On paper, Asia-Pacific is moving in one direction. Malaysia is implementing mandatory pharmaceutical serialisation by 2027, followed by full aggregation by 2030. Indonesia, the region’s largest pharmaceutical market, is currently testing serialisation for high-risk medications with implementation expected by 2027. Thailand has already begun traceability requirements for vaccines and essential medicines, with extensive compliance measures planned for 2026. Vietnam applies serialisation and traceability to both imported and locally manufactured pharmaceuticals, extending until 2028. China and South Korea have their own regulatory regimes, separate and distinct from Southeast Asia’s frameworks. 
Moreover, the same WHO guidelines can lead to completely different expectations, documentation formats, or validation requirements from country to country. Regulation is designed as a safeguard, it protects patients by ensuring products are stored, handled, and transported within strict parameters. But it becomes challenging when compliance requirements diverge from what is realistically achievable on the ground.

The second assumption, that infrastructure readiness is broadly comparable, faces a similar reality. If regulatory fragmentation were the only problem, leaders could solve it with better compliance teams and local expertise. But infrastructure readiness across Asia-Pacific diverges so sharply that it amplifies the regulatory challenge. 

China has invested in national cold chain logistics infrastructure, dedicated hubs that integrate real-time tracking, temperature monitoring, and regulatory compliance into a single network. A multinational company expanding into China faces regulatory complexity. But it can work with infrastructure that already exists. 

India is different. The country is expanding cold storage through solar-powered smart refrigeration and distributed cold chain solutions, partly because vast geography and rural populations require it. It’s a model tailored to India’s constraints. It works, but it demands operational flexibility that uniform systems can’t provide. 

Japan and South Korea have mature infrastructure and regulatory certainty, built through public-private partnerships and standardised monitoring practices developed over years.

Southeast Asia is a different story. Thailand has reasonable cold chain coverage in urban areas; rural connectivity is limited. Vietnam’s infrastructure is expanding but unevenly. Indonesia’s geography creates logistics challenges no single operational model easily solves. Outside major metropolitan areas across the region, the Philippines included, power supply is inconsistent, logistics connectivity is weak, and temperature-controlled warehousing is sparse. 

The gap is most visible at the last mile. This is the period when temperature-sensitive cargo is dispatched from the warehouse for delivery to the customer, and in emerging markets, infrastructure gaps mean this window is harder to control. Small inconsistencies at this stage can quickly escalate. “In practice, systems thinking breaks down most often at handoffs, the points where responsibility, data, or physical control shifts from one party to another. Every handoff introduces variability, and in healthcare logistics, even a short lapse can affect product integrity.” 

The infrastructure challenge is not one that better planning alone can resolve. It reflects the structural reality that Asia-Pacific’s markets are at genuinely different stages of development and that a logistics model calibrated for one tier of that spectrum will not simply transfer to another. 

Of the three assumptions, Wilman identifies the third as the one leaders are least prepared for. “The most underestimated assumption is about people and organisational capability,” he says. “As operations grow across multiple partners and regulatory regimes, standardisation becomes even more important.

However, one cannot blindly rely on uniform experience levels, standard decision-making maturity, or identical interpretations of risk. It is important to have local expertise that can tweak the system to offer similar service quality while adhering to local regulations, requirements, and market maturity. The system becomes more fragile unless you build a workforce that deeply understands the intent behind healthcare-grade processes, not just the steps.” 

This is where the limits of a purely technical approach become clear. “From a distance, it’s easy to assume that if you have the right cold chain equipment, the right SOPs, and the right certifications, the system will run flawlessly,” Wilman says. “In reality, precision in healthcare logistics depends on how people interpret risk, how they make decisions under pressure, and how consistently they follow the intent behind the procedures. Technology can monitor temperature, but it cannot replace the judgment required when a shipment is delayed at customs, or when a product arrives with borderline readings that could impact patient safety.” 

Moreover, none of this works without embedding patient centricity into operational decision-making. This is structural operational discipline, not soft management. Wilman emphasises this: “Frontline teams must understand not just what to do but why they do it. Beyond stringent processes and systems in place, people need to possess a culture of patient centricity. Sharing stories to them, of how patients benefited from medical device they delivered at the right place and temperature, can reinforce the mindset of zero-tolerance operations.”

He is explicit about why: “In healthcare logistics, people who genuinely care about the patient at the end of the chain bring a different level of ownership.

They see the meaning behind routine tasks, and that sense of purpose drives better judgment, stronger escalation behavior, and greater consistency.”  This translates into operational practice. At DHL, it manifests as a “Right First Time” culture—an expectation embedded across the entire organisation, from leadership to frontline, that execution discipline is non -negotiable. When teams understand that their decisions affect patient outcomes, they make different choices in ambiguous situations. They escalate faster. They invest more care in handoffs. 

When leaders focus on building patient-centric culture rather than just imposing process compliance, the system becomes more resilient because teams understand intent, not just process rules. Teams can navigate regulatory uncertainty and infrastructure constraints because they understand the intent behind the rules, not just the rules themselves. 

Wilman’s talent priorities reflect this directly. “Five years ago, we focused primarily on technical expertise. Today, we place equal weight on purpose and mindset. In healthcare logistics, people who genuinely care about the patient at the end of the chain bring a different level of ownership. They see the meaning behind routine tasks, and that sense of purpose drives better judgment, stronger escalation behaviour, and greater consistency.”