Business
low or no value in all categories and experience thus far suggests it will not improve over time. Partnership B requires a more detailed analysis to determine why the prospect for delivery of value is so poor, both to see if it is salvageable and to understand what lessons could be learned for future partnerships.
Partnership C Partnership C (Figure 2c) has been established for over a decade; it scores relatively well against all categories and very highly for Delivery on Objectives. Although delivery of value is not expected to increase over the next two years, the value it is already delivering means this is not a cause for concern.
Analysis of the assessment data leads to key three observations:
1. New PPPs need time to mature in order to deliv- er their full potential. This is especially true for those with a primary focus on generating results through new experimental work, where the time taken to recruit staff and plan, perform and inter- pret experiments is considerable. Partnership A is an example of this. As a result, when accessing rel- atively new PPPs it is important to recognise the potential value they could deliver, rather than sole- ly the present value. It was also apparent that the time it takes a partnership to deliver full value is commonly underestimated.
2. Established PPPs that are performing less well compared to others need further assessment. PPPs with a low current delivery value and a higher
Figure 3
Approximate present values of a sub-set of the PPP portfolio (ordered by starting year)
future value, should be monitored to ensure that the expected increase does occur, if necessary pro- viding assistance to ensure this. Where both the present and future value is perceived to be low, such as Partnership B, more detailed analysis is required to understand why the PPP could not deliver better value and whether continued invest- ment is appropriate.
3. The value delivered by a PPP does not have to increase continually over its lifetime provided it is delivering on the objectives. Established PPPs that deliver consistently high value (like Partnership C) are likely to be the ones that are the most stable and are ideally positioned to draw lessons from.
The partnership value dashboard In line with the previously-explained concerns about measuring the precise value of deliverables from each partnership, semi-quantitative estimates of value in terms of impact on the R&D pipeline were obtained from combining the scores in the four cat- egories outlined in Figure 1. Presenting these as a dashboard (Figure 3) produces a portfolio view and enables comparisons between partnerships. Figure 3 shows the overall present value of a sub-set of the PPP portfolio. The oldest PPPs are located at the top of the plot with the newest locat- ed at the bottom. In the following discussion, ref- erence is made to the same three partnerships (A, B and C) as discussed earlier in Figure 2. The highest value is currently resulting from Partnership C, which is the second oldest PPP in the portfolio sub-set. It is clearly well established and, as highlighted previously, is delivering significant
14
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