Business


Figure 1


The assessment tool was built around a set of common criteria that were grouped into four categories


2. Apply weighting profiles to highlight important factors


Not all elements of an assessment are necessarily of equal importance. For example, while the impact on non-R&D objectives may be worth considering, the impact on an R&D objective may be of greater importance. Each element of the assessment there- fore needs to be weighted according to its individ- ual importance to the business.


The actual weightings applied to individual questions are highly dependent on the sponsoring organisation’s strategy. Business requirements may change over time and the ability to change the associated weightings enables the assessment tool to be adapted for subsequent reviews should the strategy change. However, provided the weightings are agreed by a stakeholder group at the start of each process, and fixed throughout the assessment, the analysis should be consistent across projects.


3. Recognise that the value a partnership delivers often changes over time


Recently started partnerships may not have had sufficient time, compared to older ones, to deliver the expected value, and this could restrict the util- ity of a scoring model based solely on tangible deliverables.


A number of elements that address both the cur- 10


rent value of the partnership and the perceived future value (the value considered realistically achievable within two years) were therefore included in the assessment tool. This understand- ing of the ‘as is’ and ‘should be’ scenarios enables a more realistic visualisation of the value a portfo- lio can deliver at a subsequent date, avoiding the danger of making decisions based on current value only. It also helps to identify the key areas where focus will be required to ensure that this future value is realised.


Using the assessment tool


Whilst this approach is applicable for general use across a range of partnerships, in the remainder of this article its use will be exemplified with a sub-set of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs, also com- monly referred to as research consortia) currently supported by GSK. In the context of this discus- sion, PPPs are defined as partnerships involving more than one pharmaceutical company and at least one public funding agency. The sub-set of PPPs selected, while diverse in nature, are general- ly focused on areas of pre-competitive science where the deliverables are less tangible than for therapeutic agent partnerships. Therefore, they are well-placed to demonstrate the value of this new assessment tool.


A three-step approach was used: Drug Discovery World Winter 2010/11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80