An article By Ed Silverman // (Pharmalot)
When the going gets tough, do the tough know now to innovate? Apparently not. At least that’s what a bunch of pharma execs confess in a new survey that finds only 54 percent - including those who admit to having poor or ineffective innovation strategies - consider innovation to be a leading priority. And only 49 percent rank their overall innovation strategy as just moderately effective, at best.
More specifically, improving innovation was cited as the single most important priority that will define success by 16 percent, while 38 mentioned this is a one of a handful of top priorities. Interestingly, 26 percent reported that change is important, but really just one priority among many others. And 11 percent say change would be good, but it is not a priority. And 7 percent say ‘why change?’
Meanwhile, just 47 percent report their R&D model is capable of meeting corporate needs and only 42 percent say their strategy is more than moderately successful at replenishing the pipeline. These sobering results reflect comments from 282 senior execs, including 58 percent from the c-suite, by the Economist Intelligence Unit and was done at the behest of Quintiles, the clinical research organization.
“In any other industry you can measure using metrics, but you can’t really do that in this industry,” Peter Hongaard Andersen, exec vp for research at Lundbeck, tells the questionnaires. Instead, potential improvements need to be assessed against non-tangible criteria, such as measuring the quality of efforts before knowing if a pay off exists. “That is why we are all struggling to get this right.”
But what are the impediments to improving innovation? Not surprisingly 47 percent cited cost as a leading barrier, followed by 38 percent who pointed to the time involved in product development and 33 percent who fault regulatory restrictions. However, cultural attachment to existing ways and a lack of talent were cited by 24 percent. And difficult corporate structures were mentioned by 21 percent.
“Right now the industry is very much driven by fear rather than by ambition,” Paion ceo Wolfgang Soehngen tells the questionnaires. He acknowledges that there are legitimate issues that make innovation difficult to achieve. But, he adds, these are “partially fact, partially an excuse.”
The survey found that drugmakers and biotechs are experimenting with a number of possible improvements, but none of these strategies is becoming widely popular within their organizations. In fact, Nine different ideas have each been adopted at more than 20 percent of the companies, but the most popular were only taken on by one-third of the respondents.
When it comes to finding ideas, here’s an interesting contrast: over the last three years, 59 percent of employees in clinical development at device makers, generic makers and service providers cite doctors and medical experts as sources, while 41 percent point to academic research and 35 percent named patients and patients groups. The rest of the employees have differing views: 51 percent cited internal R&D; 44 percent named existing intellectual property and 34 percent pointed to doctors.
In biopharma, academic research was cited as the second most common source of ideas over the coming three years - 38 percent, to be exact, while only 24 percent of other employees pointed to such research. Internal R&D remains the leading source of innovation as a whole, cited by 60 percent, but over the next three years, just 46 percent of the execs say internal R&D will be a good source.
Meanwhile 63 percent of those who believe they have effective innovation programs say they are successfully using open innovation, compared with 35 percent of the rest of the respondents. Which barriers are mentioned? A lack of certainty over the resulting intellectual property, difficulty in coordinating the process, and research costs that can impede effective open collaboration.
When asked how well their companies use data to support its product innovation, both internal and external data - 34 percent say they use internal data very well, but only 21 percent acknowledged making similar use of external data. All totaled, 51 percent say sharing data across companies is either very useful or simply useful.
By the way, over the last three years, 37 percent of execs who say their innovation programs are very effective have adopted new technology to access and mine data, and 33 percent have invested in technology to speed the way that drug candidates are filtered. This compares with 22 percent of those who do not describe their innovation efforts as effective.
The findings maintain this correlates to success - 67 percent of the so-called innovation leaders say they use internal company data to support innovation very well, compared with 25 percent of the rest; and 38 percent say the same about external data, compared with 17 percent among the others.
But how does one go about creating a good innovation environment? Consider rewards. More of the self-proclaimed innovation leaders offer financial rewards for contributions - 53 percent compared with 29 percent. And 47 percent of those with who rate their innovation systems as very effective also provide recognition for contributions to innovation, compared with 39 percent of the others.
More specifically, improving innovation was cited as the single most important priority that will define success by 16 percent, while 38 mentioned this is a one of a handful of top priorities. Interestingly, 26 percent reported that change is important, but really just one priority among many others. And 11 percent say change would be good, but it is not a priority. And 7 percent say ‘why change?’
Meanwhile, just 47 percent report their R&D model is capable of meeting corporate needs and only 42 percent say their strategy is more than moderately successful at replenishing the pipeline. These sobering results reflect comments from 282 senior execs, including 58 percent from the c-suite, by the Economist Intelligence Unit and was done at the behest of Quintiles, the clinical research organization.
“In any other industry you can measure using metrics, but you can’t really do that in this industry,” Peter Hongaard Andersen, exec vp for research at Lundbeck, tells the questionnaires. Instead, potential improvements need to be assessed against non-tangible criteria, such as measuring the quality of efforts before knowing if a pay off exists. “That is why we are all struggling to get this right.”
But what are the impediments to improving innovation? Not surprisingly 47 percent cited cost as a leading barrier, followed by 38 percent who pointed to the time involved in product development and 33 percent who fault regulatory restrictions. However, cultural attachment to existing ways and a lack of talent were cited by 24 percent. And difficult corporate structures were mentioned by 21 percent.
“Right now the industry is very much driven by fear rather than by ambition,” Paion ceo Wolfgang Soehngen tells the questionnaires. He acknowledges that there are legitimate issues that make innovation difficult to achieve. But, he adds, these are “partially fact, partially an excuse.”
The survey found that drugmakers and biotechs are experimenting with a number of possible improvements, but none of these strategies is becoming widely popular within their organizations. In fact, Nine different ideas have each been adopted at more than 20 percent of the companies, but the most popular were only taken on by one-third of the respondents.
When it comes to finding ideas, here’s an interesting contrast: over the last three years, 59 percent of employees in clinical development at device makers, generic makers and service providers cite doctors and medical experts as sources, while 41 percent point to academic research and 35 percent named patients and patients groups. The rest of the employees have differing views: 51 percent cited internal R&D; 44 percent named existing intellectual property and 34 percent pointed to doctors.
In biopharma, academic research was cited as the second most common source of ideas over the coming three years - 38 percent, to be exact, while only 24 percent of other employees pointed to such research. Internal R&D remains the leading source of innovation as a whole, cited by 60 percent, but over the next three years, just 46 percent of the execs say internal R&D will be a good source.
Meanwhile 63 percent of those who believe they have effective innovation programs say they are successfully using open innovation, compared with 35 percent of the rest of the respondents. Which barriers are mentioned? A lack of certainty over the resulting intellectual property, difficulty in coordinating the process, and research costs that can impede effective open collaboration.
When asked how well their companies use data to support its product innovation, both internal and external data - 34 percent say they use internal data very well, but only 21 percent acknowledged making similar use of external data. All totaled, 51 percent say sharing data across companies is either very useful or simply useful.
By the way, over the last three years, 37 percent of execs who say their innovation programs are very effective have adopted new technology to access and mine data, and 33 percent have invested in technology to speed the way that drug candidates are filtered. This compares with 22 percent of those who do not describe their innovation efforts as effective.
The findings maintain this correlates to success - 67 percent of the so-called innovation leaders say they use internal company data to support innovation very well, compared with 25 percent of the rest; and 38 percent say the same about external data, compared with 17 percent among the others.
But how does one go about creating a good innovation environment? Consider rewards. More of the self-proclaimed innovation leaders offer financial rewards for contributions - 53 percent compared with 29 percent. And 47 percent of those with who rate their innovation systems as very effective also provide recognition for contributions to innovation, compared with 39 percent of the others.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen