The survey analyzed responses from KOL professionals about their use of KOL software. It found that the majority (80%) do not use the four main KOL software solutions. Nearly half (46%) did not use any database. Of those who did, most used internally developed systems. The survey also found that a quarter of respondents use their software occasionally or cannot recall frequency of use, indicating underutilization. Only 18% reported daily/weekly use. Nearly half (46%) saw their software as useful but not essential, while 18% saw it as essential. Respondents' views on usefulness correlated with their reported usage. The most common improvement requested was enabling more collaboration and transparency within teams. In general, the survey suggests

1. KOL Software Survey 2013
Original research by Kendle Healthcare
2/21/2013
Kendle Healthcare
www.kendlehealthcare.com

2. The KOL Software Survey 2013
About the survey
We devised a list of five survey questions designed to provide quantitative data on different aspects
of KOL software, including usage, utility, cost, possible improvements and perceived value. Four of
the questions also provided an opportunity for respondents to add qualitative data in the form of
free text fields and a final sixth question was devoted solely to the collection of qualitative data
through free text.
The opportunity to respond was presented to 1500 of our relevant contacts working within KOL
engagement and opened to KOL focussed discussion groups on LinkedIn. Only two responses were
received from outside the user community (KOL professionals in pharmaceutical and biotech
companies) and these were excluded from the final totals to improve accuracy of the data.
Data:
What KOL software have you used in the
past?
14% 2%
2%
Heartbeat
2%
OpenQ
KOL Online
SystemAnalytic FireFly/SuperFly
None/other
80%
Analysis:
The vast majority of respondents do not use any of the 4 identified market leading solutions, in fact
46% used no database whatsoever in their KOL engagement programme. Of those who responded
“other”, all but one was using a system developed in-house, ranging in complexity from a simple
spread-sheet to custom designed software. From this it seems that there isn’t a good fit between
the solutions available and the market.

3. Data:
How frequently do you use your KOL
software?
11%
Daily
7% 2%
Weekly
Monthly
Occasionally
55%
23% Don't know
Never/don't have one
2%
Analysis:
With a quarter of respondents indicating that their use of their system was occasional or they
couldn’t recall when they used it, there is a clear indicator of underutilisation of existing systems.
When the data was split to analyse responses in relation to internal or external software, there was
no bias either way, indicating that this issue of adoption is present regardless of whether the
company is using internal or external systems.
Another issue that needs to be explored is the large percentage of people who never use a system
like this (9%) or don’t have one at all (46%). Is this because there’s nothing on the market that
adequately supports their programme or could there be a case for arguing that such a system is seen
as unecessary regardless of how it is constructed?
An encouraging 18% of people report using their software daily or weekly which illustrates a high
level of engagement with the solution they are using. As with the people who are using their systems
infrequently, there is no correlation between engagement and the system being produced internally
or purchased externally. We need to look deeper at why this minority group are able to engage with
and effectively utilise systems.
The small percentage of respondents who use their system monthly support the idea that people are
either frequent users or infrequent users, as two distinct groups. If a large percentage of people
chose monthly we might be able to conclude that there was scope to utilise the systems in different
ways; however the results indicate that this is not the case.

4. Data:
How important is your KOL software to your
KOL strategy?
Essential, it’s the lifeblood of
the programme and we’d be
18% lost without it
Useful but not essential, if we
didn’t have it we’d be ok
46%
Underutilised/not useful, it
27% doesn’t have a major role in our
strategy
Don’t have one
9%
Analysis:
The first thing that stands out about this graph is the percentage of those who think their software is
essential; at 18% it matches with our percentage of engaged users from the previous question.
Additional analysis reveals a direct correlation between these two groups; so our engaged, frequent
users are the ones deriving “essential” value from their system. Whilst this isn’t wholly surprising, it
does beg the question of why this group are able to achieve this when the majority do not.
In addition, by adding our monthly users to our “infrequent user” category from the previous graph,
we see another direct correlation between this group and the 27% perception that the systems are
useful but not essential.
As with the other two questions, there is a majority segment that is totally disengaged with the
concept, 46% opting not to have any system at all and 9% indicating that whilst they have one they
never use it as they don’t find it useful at all or it doesn’t play a role in their strategy.
There is no indication as yet from our data as to why this difference in viewpoint might occur, but
the correlations between actual usage and perception of usefulness is clear. We must now seek to
discover the possible reasons for the different perspectives on how useful these systems are.

5. Data:
If you were going to improve your existing
software it would:
Have tools to guide me through
the engagement process
9%
19% Allow me to plan my
engagement strategy in the
programme
15%
Less complicated, people don’t
understand half of what ours
does
10%
Allow more
collaboration/transparency
8%
over activities within the team
Better manage my workflow
12%
No improvements, it’s perfect
27% just as it is
Other (please specify)
Analysis:
Only 10% of people were totally satisfied with their current system, which is just over half the group
who categorised themselves as being frequent users who perceive their software as essential. This
indicates that the problem is not solely a lack of utility or ease of use; there are other factors that
influence engagement with KOL software.
The most popular improvement, gathering over a quarter of total responses, was for the system to
allow more collaboration and transparency within the team. The exceptions to this were people
without a system because they worked solo on their KOL engagement strategy.
Only 8% of people voted for an increase in simplicity but this clouds the fact that many people who
said they were happy with their current system explained this was largely because it was simple to
use.
The second most popular response was the capacity to plan the KOL engagement strategy within the
software, indicating a preference for a system that supports your work as well as holds the data.
There seems to be a conflict in the available solutions being used by KOL professionals today and this
fusion of simplicity and comprehensiveness that is the end goal for most.

6. Data:
How much did you pay for your software?
0%
2%
0% 2%
5%
2% £0-£1999
£2000-£3999
£4000-£5999
£6000-£7999
52% £8000-£9999
37% £10000+
Don't know
Don't have one
Analysis:
The data gathered in this question is slightly flawed by the fact that some respondents using simple
internal devices such as spread-sheets interpreted the question in such a way that they categorised
themselves as not having software as opposed to it being free. With this in mind, the reader may
choose to adjust this figure down by 8% and increase the 0-1999 result by 8% in order to better
interpret the results.
In addition, many respondents didn’t know how much their systems had cost which makes this
rather an incomplete picture. However, one thing that can be deduced from this knowledge gap is
that cost is not as big a factor within the target market as perceived utility and ease of use.
Qualitative Research & Analysis
What KOL software have you used in the past?
As mentioned earlier, all but one respondent in the “other” category (not the solutions listed) was
using an internal system and the results of this were split pretty evenly between those who had
invested in developing bespoke software and those who were using more simple tools such as Excel
and Sharepoint. One common observation from among the bespoke developers was that their
systems were mainly CRM systems with no strategic support built in as opposed to the Holy Grail of
an “all under one roof” solution.
Of those who were working with simple systems, they commonly identified that they liked the
simplicity of their systems. They desired further collaborative functionality, although not at the
expense of the simplicity that resulted in their high levels of engagement with the current system.

7. How frequently do you use your KOL software?
Only the infrequent users chose to supply additional information here and the pattern was that they
tended to use their software as more of an occasional reference resource rather than an essential
tool that actually added value to and structure their work.
Of the specific uses of the software described, they appeared to be piecemeal and only reflective of
a very small niche percentage of the work that goes into implementing a KOL strategy. For example
one respondent, a Communications Development Manager at a large pharmaceutical company
recorded using theirs solely to keep track of meetings and events. There was no evidence of the
simple yet comprehensive tool outlined as the ideal by many people in later questions.
How important is your KOL software to your KOL strategy?
There was little additional qualitative information provided in this section but one interesting
observation was from a Professional Relations Manager based at a large pharmaceutical company
who noted that not only did they not have a formal database but “Paper based works out fine”, “I
can see potential advantages for sharing, but at the moment I am the sole point of contact with my
KOLs”.
It is understandable how someone who is the sole POC might perceive the situation this way, but it
does raise questions of how lone operators should be recording their data, not necessarily for
collaboration but for succession and compliance.
Improvements to existing software
A vehement response from a Senior Brand Director at a large pharmaceutical company using the
most popular market leading solution said “Get rid of it…waste of money!” and whilst this was one
of the most extreme examples, it was certainly on par with various other responses expressing
frustration at current commercial solutions that failed to deliver value.
Others were more specific in their desire for simplicity, either by having already achieved this using
in-house systems or their wish for greater simplicity than was currently being achieved. Simplicity
wasn’t just required for its impact on working process but also for data accuracy as many people
reported poor levels of engagement, inaccuracies and other bad data issues resulting from overly
complex and clunky systems.
One Head of Global Medical Affairs observed that their “current KOL system is appropriate for global
use but a separate global system to track payments to HCPs at national level could be useful.”
Looking towards the next section of the ideal solution, one might argue that the perfect system
would do all of this and more.
Requirements for KOL software: The Ideal Solution
Simplicity was the order of the day when we asked about what people might want or not want from
a potential system, summed up perfectly by one product manager who remarked “I don't have one.
If I did it would be best to be as simple as possible. Nothing fancy is needed, just a big dose of

8. simplicity & common sense.” Another peer from a UK based pharmaceutical company agreed, saying
“An all singing and dancing database that requires high level of resource to maintain will quickly die
a death.”
There were several calls for a deeper level of information to be available on the individuals within a
database, easy reference of interests and specialities topping the list. At a more senior level there is
an emphasis on wider business collaboration, one General Manager commented that his ideal
solution would “improve cooperation and exchange of knowledge between departments: Market
Access, Medical Affairs, Marketing, Sales”. This sentiment was reflected in the quantitative result
which placed collaboration and transparency top of the list of priorities for improvement.
Clearly there are a lot of demands to be made on one system if it is to realise everyone’s vision of
perfection, however solution providers should not lose heart; there’s definitely an appetite for a
solution that ticks all the boxes and industry professionals can see the potential. One Healthcare
Development Manager set out their vision, “I am not aware of us having a database or software
however think it could prove valuable to my team to ensure clear strategic alignment and
endorsement of brands.”