A more ‘nimble approach’ needed for CRO-pharma partnerships
pharmafile | April 10, 2012 | News story | Research and Development | CRO, partnerships
Pharma firms need to create closer and more flexible relationships with their contract research organisations for better outcomes.
This is according to a new report: ‘Nimble Partnerships in the Pharma Industry: Well-Designed CRO Relationships Enhance Focus and Flexibility’.
Conducted by outsourcing firm ICON and cosultancy Booz & Company, the report says pharma companies that adopt a nimble, capability-centred approach to partnerships will be more focused, make better use of their distinct capabilities, and generate more value.
The report says pharma companies are under intense pressure to extract more value from their R&D capabilities, including partnerships with Clinical Research Organisations (CROs).
For CROs, there’s a lot of money up for grabs – if they can make themselves attractive partners to win these key relationships. Global pharmaceutical outsourcing is expected to reach $28 billion this year and climb to $35.5 billion by 2015, an increase of more than 10% since 2009.
“Developing the capabilities to partner with CROs is a critical key to success for pharma companies in today’s increasingly complex and competitive environment,” said Matthew Le Merle, a partner with Booz & Company.
“But our research clearly showed that most companies are not structuring their CRO relationships strategically. This is wasting time and money they can ill afford to lose.”
Booz interviewed 20 senior executives at 11 of the 20 top pharma companies globally to identify the types of CRO relationships and a framework that helps pharma companies assess which partnership structure will be most effective.
Key findings include:
· Weak ties to strategy: Most pharma companies have broad strategic reasons for clinical outsourcing (e.g. outsourcing non-core capabilities), but rarely align the design, structure, and performance measures of these relationships to reflect their overarching business strategy – leaving value on the table.
· Capabilities drive structure: A pharma’s core R&D capabilities influence which CRO relationship model is best. For example, a strategic partnership requires strong leadership commitment on both sides. If a pharma is a weak at assessing the quality of management the CRO will bring to the table, this model will not be as effective for them.
· Winning CRO plays: Pharma companies said they’d like CROs to develop a sense of co-ownership of business results and improve control and oversight of studies from start to finish. They also want CROs to provide more innovative approaches to clinical trial monitoring, flag surprising results early, and maintain proactive account service after contracts are signed.
Ciaran Murray, chief executive at ICON, said: “Regardless of the model chosen, a top-down approach to partnerships where the performance measures are tied to the strategic objectives of the partnership is fundamental to success.
“ICON has been successful in building close strategic partnerships by being flexible and innovative in the way that we conduct clinical research and in how we build our partnerships.
“We also continuously look to expand our capabilities and service offerings in order to ensure that we deliver value,” he added.
Ben Adams
Related Content
Crown Bioscience opens new US model development centre
Crown Bioscience, a US global contract research organisation (CRO) that is part of JSR Life …
From molecule to market and beyond: Uniphar announces extended global commercialization platform
22 October 2024 – Dublin, Ireland – Healthcare services business, Uniphar, has developed its full-service …
Drug development contracts: can lessons be learned from healthcare delivery?
There is a very good question to ask at the beginning of every project: “What …
