Business


Stage 1: Build the assessment tool


The assessment tool was based around a weighted scoring methodology, comprising a list of ques- tions (or criteria) within four major categories (Figure 1). The criteria were carefully selected, worded and defined by the needs of the business, then organised into the categories summarised in Table 1. This enables the criteria to be closely aligned with specific R&D requirements and part- nership strategy.


The shaded items in Figure 1 represent time- dependent criteria, where the present and future values could potentially be differentiated. The Impact on R&D Productivity and Access to Capability and Talent categories are completely populated with time-dependent criteria, while Strategic Interests and Delivery on Objectives are less so. This difference reflects the observation that alignment of partnership objectives to Strategic Interests, and the way they are managed to deliver on those objectives, should not change considerably over a two-year period. If this were not the case then the purpose of entering the part- nership, or continuing it, should be questioned. Indeed, the only way to increase the value that these categories deliver would be to restructure the partnership. In the case of the Impact on R&D Productivity and Access to Capability and Talent categories, the value realised may change over time, particularly with recently-formed partner- ships where the outputs have yet to be adopted or utilised extensively.


It is essential that assessment tools such as these are owned and promoted by senior execu- tives and that the extended business units are fully engaged with both the need for assessment and the methodology employed. Working directly with members of the R&D executive, the criteria were tested and validated for relia- bility through an iterative series of workshops


Strategic Interests:


and feedback sessions where the criteria were challenged, reviewed, weighted and accepted by stakeholders.


Stage 2: Gather the data


Many of the IT solutions used to gather informa- tion from key stakeholders do not address the level of complexity that often exists when balanc- ing the needs of a company against the perceived benefits of an external venture. As a result, it is often easy to contradict preceding answers or simply assign a ‘score’ to a criterion without thinking through all the elements of potential value such as strategic alignment or organisation- al development.


For this reason, data were gathered through per- sonal interviews with key stakeholders for each partnership using the criterion set as a basis for dis- cussion. Each criterion was scored by the intervie- wee based on the discussion and their supporting comments were gathered. To avoid middle-ground responses and force decisions, only four possible outcomes to each cri- terion were allowed, ranging in score from zero to three, which were assigned to a value relevant to that criterion. For example, in the Enhanced Disease and Patient Knowledge criterion, scores zero to three corresponded to ‘Little or no Impact’, ‘Enhanced understanding of disease area’, ‘Significant impact on disease area or enhanced understanding of multiple disease areas’, and ‘Sets new direction in disease area or significant impact on several disease areas’. In each case, the selected score was supported by a full documentation of the collected comments of the interviewees.


Stage 3: Analyse and interpret


The most useful portfolio analysis tools allow the user to explore and debate project data from a number of different angles. In the case of this


Alignment to R&D priorities and objectives, both short- term (e.g. therapeutic area gaps) and long-term (e.g. capability development)


Impact on R&D Productivity: Access to Capability & Talent: Delivery on Objectives:


Providing improved disease understanding, enabling better decision making, or reducing costs of activities


Developing and accessing talent and technologies both internally and externally


Organisation and management of the partnership, including input from R&D, to deliver the agreed objectives


Table 1: Criteria were aligned to categories according to their individual purpose Drug Discovery World Winter 2010/11 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