• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The new reality  strategic partnerships under scrutiny 6:26:12
 

The new reality strategic partnerships under scrutiny 6:26:12

on

  • 441 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
441
Views on SlideShare
367
Embed Views
74

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

3 Embeds 74

http://www2.theavocagroup.com 71
http://50.56.181.52 2
https://twitter.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The new reality  strategic partnerships under scrutiny 6:26:12 The new reality strategic partnerships under scrutiny 6:26:12 Presentation Transcript

    • The New Reality:Strategic PartnershipsUnder ScrutinyAre They Working and How LongDoes It Take?Tuesday, June 26, 2012
    • Panel MembersForum Chair•  Patricia Leuchten, President and CEO, The Avoca GroupPanel Members•  Chris Davis, RPh, Director, External Sourcing, Eli Lilly and Company•  Peter A. DiBiaso, MHA, Senior Director, Head, Clinical Business Operations, Vertex•  Paul D. Spreen, Senior Vice President and Global Head, Customer Solutions Management Group, Quintiles
    • The New Reality: Strategic Partnerships Under ScrutinyThree Main Discussion Topics for This Session1.  Characterization of strategic partnerships and levels of satisfaction2.  Objectives and whether expectations are being met3.  Implementation strategies and tools for managing relationships
    • The New Reality:Strategic Partnerships Under Scrutiny 2012 Avoca Industry Survey on Strategic Alliances: Background
    • RespondentsCharacteristics of RespondentsSponsor Respondents•  147 respondents from 89 companies•  72% from pharmaceutical companies, 23% biotechnology, 3% device, 2% other•  50% from “Top 20” companies with respect to revenueClinical Service Provider Respondents•  97 respondents from 84 companies•  50% from CROs, 50% from other (specialty) providers
    • Part 1: Characterizing the Strategic Alliances between Sponsors and CROs and Levels of Satisfaction
    • Sponsor DataDoes your current company have, or has If “Yes”, how many strategicit had, any "strategic partnerships" with partnerships does your company clinical service providers? currently have? (one response per company) (one response per company) 4% 3%2% 21% 1 Yes 16% 2-3 47% No 4-6 49% >6 Dont Know 58% Dont know N=92 N=43
    • Clinical Service Provider DataDoes your current company have, or has With how many strategic partnershipsit had, any "strategic partnerships" with have you personally had direct sponsor companies? experience, either at your current One response per company company or in a previous position with a clinical service provider? 6% 17% None Yes 24% 1 27% No 16% 2-3 12% 67% 4-6 Dont Know >6 31% N=82 N=93
    • Sponsor DataTo your knowledge, has your company ever discontinued a strategic partnership? (one response per company) 12% 22% Yes Most common reason for discontinuation: No Poor quality, followed by overall poor Dont know performance 66% N=91
    • Each respondent was asked to report on an “index” strategicpartnership with which he/she had the most direct experience.“Strategic partnership” was defined as follows:A long-term contractual commitment between twoorganizations that seeks to achieve specific businessobjectives by maximizing the effectiveness of eachparticipant’s resources. Strategic partnerships are generallycharacterized by process alignment, and by risk-sharing orother provisions serving to align business objectives.
    • Sponsor Data How mature is the strategic partnership (or, if you are no longer involved with therelationship in question, how mature was it when your involvement ended)? "Inception" refers to the time at which project work under the relationship began. 16% <1 year since 27% inception 1-3 years since inception >3 years since inception 57% N=111
    • Satisfaction Levels:Sponsor and CRO Results
    • Sponsor DataOverall, how satisfied are you with the work that has been done for you by the strategic partner? 4% 3% 9% Very satisfied 21% Generally satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally dissatisfied 63% Very dissatisfied N=108
    • Sponsor DataOverall, how satisfied are you with the work that has been done for you by… N the strategic partner? 9% 63% 21% 3% 4% 108 Clinical Service Providers? (all respondents) 1% 72% 20% 7% 139 Clinical Service Providers? (respondents with 4% 64% 32% 22 no strategic partner experience) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Generally satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
    • Sponsor DataOverall, how satisfied are you with the work that has been done for you by the strategic partner? N How mature is the strategic partnership? <1 year since inception 6% 61% 28% 6% 18 1-3 years since inception 10% 57% 28% 2% 3% 61 >3 years since inception 10% 76% 3% 7% 3% 29 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Generally satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
    • Sponsor DataIn general, how satisfied are you with the value that you have received for the money spent with this strategic partner? N How mature is the strategic partnership? <1 year since inception 6% 41% 41% 12% 17 1-3 years since inception 9% 45% 31% 16% 58 >3 years since inception 8% 54% 23% 12% 4% 26 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Generally satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
    • Comparison between Clinical Service Providers and SponsorsOverall, how satisfied are you with the work that your company has done during the strategic partnership/that has been done for your company by the strategic partner? N Suppliers 36% 54% 9% 1% 67 Sponsors 9% 63% 21% 4% 3% 108 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Generally satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
    • Clinical Service Provider DataIn general, how satisfied are you with the profit that has been generated for your company by the strategic partnership? N How mature is the strategic partnership? <1 year since inception 10% 50% 20% 20% 10 1-3 years since inception 15% 52% 30% 4% 27 >3 years since inception 19% 52% 30% 27 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Generally satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
    • Clinical Service Provider DataOverall, how satisfied have you been with the quality of the work that has been delivered to the sponsor during the strategic partnership? N How mature is the strategic partnership? <1 year since inception 36% 27% 36% 11 1-3 years since inception 25% 64% 11% 28 >3 years since inception 46% 46% 7% 28 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Generally satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
    • Part 2: Objectives of Entering into Strategic Alliances and Evaluation of Whether Objectives Were Met
    • Sponsor Data What were your companys main objectives in launching the strategic partnership? (one respondent per company, current company relationships only)Top five responses:1.  Reduced costs (53%)2.  Improved quality (43%)3.  Improved efficiency in use of internal staff (43%)4.  Access to operational expertise (43%)5.  Process improvement (30%)
    • Sponsor DataFor each of the following, to what extent has the strategic partnership met your expectations? (slide 1 of 2) N Senior management involvement 11% 58% 24% 7% 100Availability of high quality personnel for my 6% 61% 28% 6% 104 projects Expansion of global capabilities 8% 58% 29% 5% 93 Addition of regional expertise 7% 58% 31% 3% 89 Availability of sufficient resources for my 9% 56% 30% 5% 102 projects Governance/relationship management 9% 56% 29% 6% 99 Addition of operational expertise 8% 52% 32% 8% 101 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Exceeded expectations Generally met expectations Sometimes met expectations Failed to meet expectations
    • Sponsor DataFor each of the following, to what extent has the strategic partnership met your expectations? (slide 2 of 2) N Reduced contracting effort 13% 41% 30% 15% 99 Addition of regulatory/strategic expertise 6% 48% 36% 9% 85 Addition of therapeutic expertise 3% 48% 41% 8% 93 Improved quality of deliverables 4% 47% 43% 7% 101 Cost savings 6% 41% 36% 16% 94 Sparing of internal resources 7% 39% 33% 21% 100Operational innovation/process improvement 4% 40% 40% 17% 96 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Exceeded expectations Generally met expectations Sometimes met expectations Failed to meet expectations
    • Sponsor DataHow long did it take for sponsors’ main objectives to be achieved?For those respondents whose relationships spanned a period of >3 years:•  Reduced costs: A little more than half of the respondents achieved cost savings in one year or less; however, almost a quarter of the respondents reported never achieving cost savings.•  Improved quality: 54% of respondents indicated improved quality within one year; however, 21% reported never achieving improved quality.•  Improved efficiency: Less than half of the respondents felt that efficiency and the reduction in effort for oversight was achieved within one year; 28% said it was never achieved.•  Operational expertise: 75% of respondents reported receiving the expected operational expertise within one year and only 8% said that this was never achieved.•  Process improvement: Only 36% saw process improvement within 1 year; however 40% reported that their expectations with respect to process improvement were met between 1 and 2 years. Almost one quarter of this group said that their expectations in this area were never met.
    • Sponsor DataFor each of the areas listed below, please indicate how long it took before the partnership "generally" met your expectations. (slide 1 of 2) Partnerships >3 years since inception only N Availability of sufficient resources for my 60% 28% 8% 4% 25 projects Availability of high quality personnel for my 52% 24% 16% 4% 4% 25 projects Senior management involvement 40% 40% 4% 16% 25 Addition of regional expertise 40% 32% 12% 4% 12% 25 Addition of operational expertise 33% 42% 17% 8% 24 Addition of therapeutic expertise 32% 28% 8% 32% 25 Reduced contracting effort 28% 48% 12% 12% 25 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% within 6 months of inception within 1 year of inception within 2 years of inception >2 years after inception Never/not yet
    • Sponsor DataFor each of the areas listed below, please indicate how long it took before the partnership "generally" met your expectations. (slide 2 of 2) Partnerships >3 years since inception only N Governance/relationship management 28% 40% 16% 4% 12% 25 Cost savings 24% 28% 16% 8% 24% 25 Expansion of global capabilities 21% 38% 8% 17% 17% 24 Operational innovation/process improvement 16% 20% 40% 24% 25 Addition of regulatory/strategic expertise 8% 24% 8% 8% 52% 25 Improved quality of deliverables 4% 50% 13% 13% 21% 24 Reduction in effort required for oversight 4% 40% 20% 8% 28% 25 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% within 6 months of inception within 1 year of inception within 2 years of inception >2 years after inception Never/not yet
    • Sponsor DataPlease indicate how long it took before the partnership "generally" met your expectations:Does/did the partnership Cost Savings involve Partnerships of duration >3 years only N risk-sharing contractual provisions? Yes 20% 30% 30% 10% 10% 10 No 33% 17% 8% 42% 12 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% within 6 months of inception within 1 year of inception within 2 years of inception >2 years after inception Never/not yet
    • Sponsor DataPlease indicate how long it took before the partnership "generally" met your expectations:Does/did the partnership Improved quality of deliverables involve Partnerships of duration >3 years only N risk-sharing contractual provisions? Yes 10% 80% 10% 10 No 17% 25% 17% 42% 12 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% within 6 months of inception within 1 year of inception within 2 years of inception >2 years after inception Never/not yet
    • Sponsor DataPlease indicate how long it took before the partnership "generally" met your expectations:Does/did the partnership Reduction in effort required for oversight involve Partnerships of duration >3 years only N risk-sharing contractual provisions? Yes 60% 30% 10% 10 No 8% 17% 17% 17% 42% 12 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% within 6 months of inception within 1 year of inception within 2 years of inception >2 years after inception Never/not yet
    • Clinical Service Provider Data What were your companys main objectives (e.g. Top 3) in launching the strategic partnership? (one respondent per company, current company relationships only)Top five responses:1.  Increased business stability/continuity (80%)2.  Improved efficiency in the use of staff (39%)3.  Increased profit (36%)4.  Access to more interesting projects (36%)5.  Meet needs/desires of current customers (34%)
    • Clinical Service Provider DataPlease describe the extent to which the strategic partnership has met your expectations with respect to each of the following, to date. (slide 1 of 2) NMeet needs/desires of current customer 25% 66% 8%2% 64 Increased business stability/continuity 17% 69% 12% 2% 65 Acquire new customer 12% 65% 18% 6% 51 Improved quality 23% 50% 25% 2% 60 Improved efficiency in use of staff 19% 54% 22% 5% 63 Access to more interesting projects 11% 54% 25% 11% 57 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Exceeded expectations Generally met expectations Sometimes met expectations Failed to meet expectations
    • Clinical Service Provider DataPlease describe the extent to which the strategic partnership has met your expectations with respect to each of the following, to date. (slide 2 of 2) N Increased profitability 8% 55% 28% 9% 64 Process improvement 18% 44% 28% 10% 61 Reduced contracting effort 12% 50% 22% 17% 60 Improved staff retention 16% 45% 27% 12% 51 Reduced business development effort 5% 51% 30% 14% 57Access to incentives for high performance 2% 42% 42% 14% 43 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Exceeded expectations Generally met expectations Sometimes met expectations Failed to meet expectations
    • Clinical Service Provider DataHow long did it take for Providers’ main objectives to be achieved?For those respondents whose relationships spanned a period of >3 years:•  Increased business stability/continuity: 60% achieved this in one year or less; 32% said that it took between one and two years.•  Improved efficiency in the use of staff: 52% of respondents indicated improved efficiency within one year; 32% said that it took between one and two years.•  Increased profit: 52% of respondents reported increased profitability within one year; 28% said it took between 1 and 2 years; 16% reported that it took longer than two years; and a small percentage indicated that this was never achieved.•  Access to more interesting projects: a little over half of the respondents reported access to more interesting projects within one year and 16% said that this was never achieved.•  Meet needs and desires of current customers: the majority of respondents (80%) indicated that customers’ needs and desires were met within one year.
    • Clinical Service Provider DataFor each of the areas listed below, please indicate how long it took before the partnership "generally" met your expectations. Partnerships >3 years since inception N Meet needs/desires of current customer 32% 48% 8% 12% 25 Increased business stability/continuity 28% 32% 32% 4% 4% 25 Access to more interesting projects 20% 36% 12% 16% 16% 25 Reduced contracting effort 17% 50% 8% 8% 17% 24 Process improvement 17% 29% 38% 13% 4% 24 Increased profitability 16% 36% 28% 16% 4% 25 Improved quality 13% 46% 25% 8% 8% 24 Improved staff retention 12% 48% 20% 20% 25 Improved efficiency in use of staff 12% 40% 32% 12% 4% 25 Reduced business development effort 8% 38% 13% 17% 25% 24 Access to incentives for high performance 4% 21% 13% 8% 54% 24 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% within 6 months of inception within 1 year of inception within 2 years of inception >2 years after inception Never/not yet
    • Comparison between Clinical Service Providers and Sponsors Sponsor Data Clinical Service Provider DataIn your experience, how long does it take for In your experience, how long does it take for most sponsor project teams to adapt their most clinical service provider project teams styles to working under a strategic to adapt their styles to working under a partnership? strategic partnership? 2% 5% 8% 2%3% <1 year <1 year 12% 26% 1-2 years 1-2 years 38% 2-4 years 2-4 years 47% >4 years >4 years Dont know 57% Dont know N=99 N=58
    • Clinical Service Provider DataDo you feel that ultimately, this strategic partnership will achieve all of its intended objectives? NSuppliers 79% 10% 11% 61Sponsors 55% 24% 21% 103 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No Dont know
    • Clinical Service Provider DataIf “Yes” (this strategic partnership will achieve all of its intended objectives), how long do you think it will take (or did it take)? N Suppliers 40% 50% 10% 48 Sponsors 25% 62% 9% 4% 56 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% <2 years 2-4 years >4 years Dont know
    • Part 3: Implementation Strategies and Tools for Managing the Partnerships
    • Sponsor DataPlease indicate whether your company used each of the following tools for orapproaches to implementing its strategic partnership, and if so, the degree to which it was helpful in ensuring successful implementation.Top responses:1.  Roles and responsibilities checklist (95%)2.  Joint operating committee (89%)3.  Joint steering committee (83%)4.  Formal communication plan regarding new model (80%)5.  Written project charter (75%)
    • Sponsor DataPlease indicate the degree to which each was helpful in ensuring successful implementation. N Joint operating committee 53% 29% 16% 1% 85 Joint steering committee 48% 33% 15% 4% 79 Roles and responsibilities checklist 44% 36% 18% 2% 87 Joint quality committee 39% 41% 15% 4% 46 Formal communication plan regarding new model 34% 37% 21% 7% 70 Training programs for the new model 33% 41% 24% 2% 66 Other operational joint committees 33% 33% 30% 4% 46Written "manual" for project operations under the 28% 47% 18% 7% 60 Written project charter 26% 39% 25% 10% 69 Feedback surveys for staff 18% 42% 31% 9% 55 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very helpful Somewhat helpful Slightly helpful Not helpful
    • Clinical Service Provider DataPlease indicate whether your company used each of the following tools for orapproaches to implementing its strategic partnership, and if so, the degree to which it was helpful in ensuring successful implementation.Top responses:1.  Roles and responsibilities checklist (90%)2.  Joint steering committee (81%)3.  Joint operating committee (79%)4.  Training programs for the new model (78%)5.  Formal communication plan regarding the new model (75%)
    • Clinical Service Provider Data Please indicate the degree to which it was helpful in ensuring successful implementation. N Joint operating committee 50% 41% 7%2% 44 Roles and responsibilities checklist 49% 39% 8% 4% 49Formal communication plan regarding new model 44% 32% 17% 7% 41 Joint steering committee 40% 36% 20% 4% 45 Training programs for the new model 39% 39% 20% 2% 41 Written project charter 33% 42% 14% 11% 36Written "manual" for project operations under the 28% 56% 13% 3% 32 Joint quality committee 24% 44% 26% 6% 34 Other operational joint committees 19% 62% 8% 12% 26 Feedback surveys for staff 18% 35% 29% 18% 34 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very helpful Somewhat helpful Slightly helpful Not helpful
    • Comparison of ResponsesPlease indicate the degree to which it was helpful in ensuring successful implementation. Suppliers Sponsors % Somewhat-Very helpful Joint operating committee 91% 82% Roles and responsibilities checklist 88% 80% Written "manual" for project operations under the new model 84% 75% Other operational joint committees 81% 66% Training programs for the new model 78% 74% Formal communication plan regarding new model 76% 71% Joint steering committee 76% 81% Written project charter 75% 65% Joint quality committee 68% 80% Feedback surveys for staff 53% 60%
    • Sponsor DataWhat went well during the implementation phase?•  Most frequently cited theme: ongoing and open communication between teams including face-to-face time and clear communication pathways•  Sense of collaboration and trust•  Governance structure and CRO Partnership Manual –  “The set-up of a CRO Partnership Manual in close cooperation with the CRO partners.” –  “The formal and contractually agreed governance model was put in place and became effective.”
    • Sponsor DataWhat went well during the implementation phase? continued•  Definition of Roles and Responsibilities –  “Recruitment of new roles on both sides were in place and the key processes were developed and implemented.”•  Senior management support –  “Getting senior management to support initiative and whenever possible had presentations by internal Outsourcing Sr. Management to present strategy and company wide meetings.”•  Training programs –  “Hired an outside group to help develop communication and training programs for the internal organization as well as the CRO.”
    • Clinical Service Provider DataWhat went well during the implementation phase?•  The two most frequently cited themes: –  Smoothness of transition including collaboration of sponsor and provider partner teams and transfer of operational responsibilities –  Establishment of clear expectations including definition of strategy and strategic alignment.•  Open communication is the third most common theme cited. This includes the mention of a face-to-face meeting with the entire project team from both sides of the relationship.
    • Sponsor DataWhat you would have done differently during theimplementation phase?•  The most frequently cited verbatim themes cited need for enhanced training.•  Improved clarity relating to Roles and Responsibilities –  “Would have provided clear definition of role and responsibilities in both companies, my own and strategic partner.”
    • Sponsor DataWhat you would have done differently during theimplementation phase? continued•  Upfront and continued involvement by Senior Management (Sponsor and CRO) –  “Would have required more upfront involvement of leadership for show of support and reinforcing importance of this process/partner change.”•  Establishment and management of common expectations –  “Would have implemented greater management of expectations and development of sponsor skill set prior or at the same time as the model change.”
    • Clinical Service Provider DataWhat you would have done differently during theimplementation phase?•  The most frequently cited verbatim themes offered suggestions surrounding robustness of communication.•  Establishment of common expectations and improvement in advance planning also received multiple mentions. –  “Would have implemented Roles and Responsibilities sooner along with SOPs.” –  “Would have more fully reviewed expectations, down to details. Or created a plan for reviewing and redefining these on a more regular basis.”
    • Thank you!Contact Avoca at:(609) 252-9020Patty.Leuchten@theavocagroup.comwww.theavocagroup.cominfo@theavocagroup.com179 Nassau StreetSuite 3APrinceton, NJ 08542