Life Science Leader Magazine Supplements

CRO Leadership Awards 2014

The vision of Life Science Leader is to help facilitate connections and foster collaborations in pharma and med device development to get more life-saving and life-improving therapies to market in an efficient manner. Connect, Collaborate, Contribute

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 43 of 45

INDUSTRY LEADER insights By B. Widler IMPACT OF STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING ON QA OVERSIGHT BY SPONSOR COMPANIES THE CRO LEADERSHIP AWARDS 2014 LIFESCIENCELEADER.COM 42 Dr. Beat Widler is managing partner of Widler & Schiemann Ltd. He has more than 25 years of experience with Roche in Switzerland and the United Kingdom in regulatory affairs, clinical research, quality assurance, and risk management. a risk every sponsor needs to avoid. With micromanagement, accountabili- ties clearly defined in the collabora- tion contract become undermined as the sponsor starts taking back activities and roles from its partner. Consequently, this affects the efficiency that was expected from the strategic outsourcing alliance in the first place. Typical examples of this sort of risk include using the sponsor's SOPs or systems for tasks performed by the partner or creating complex approval processes for purely operational activi- ties such as clinical trial center selec- tion and onboarding. But you should also avoid a hands-off approach to outsourcing management. The obvious risk here is a lack of con- trol or oversight. You should be aware that there is lack of oversight when an outsourcing relationship relies on sub- jective progress reports written by the outsourcing partner, or such reports just address project management prior- ities (e.g. timelines, study progress) but do not include any objective and verifi- able data about quality and compliance. You also don't want those reports to identify deficiencies but do not contain evidence of adequate follow-up by the sponsor. HOW QUALITY RISK MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND APPROACHES CAN HELP "OUR NAVIGATION" In our experience, the best approach is when each of the partners agrees on an integrated quality plan that includes: structured baseline reviews of sys- tems and protocols (e.g. a failure mode and effect analysis [FMEA]) tracking and follow-up on leading and lagging risk indicators verification of the adequacy of the quality plan through structured como- nitoring visits and audits a routine process to review and act upon evidence of deviations from the quality plan or newly emerging compli- ance and quality signals. Overall, the key to success is outlining structured controls that leverage exist- ing data rather than generating a tide of new questionnaires. L always remain fully responsible and accountable for all decisions, actions undertaken, and data generated by its part- ners. In other words, for biopharm com- panies, it's the sponsor's oversight or con- trol of its partners that is paramount to achieving successful quality management. You've probably heard the phrase "you can delegate tasks but not responsibil- ity." Following this tenet, sponsors must establish a robust process and system that enables seamless control of con- tracted third parties and of a company's interfacing systems and processes. That process/system must include a way of quickly identifying significant devia- tions in outsourcing services and ways to trigger effective and timely CAPAs (corrective and preventive actions). CAPAs must lead to the identification of the root cause(s) of a significant GxP deviation. Therefore, the following are essential elements of an effective spon- sor–service provider governance model: a contract that clearly defines deliv- erables and roles and responsibilities of each partner ways of measuring compliance a quality plan that proactively antici- pates quality and compliance risks and describes and monitors effectiveness of these plans. Some sponsor companies and CROs have implemented penalties when targets (e.g. missed timelines or poor compliance) are not met. However, unless these are coupled to objective performance criteria such as KPIs (key performance indicators) and KRIs (key risk indicators), these are not a sufficient oversight measure. NAVIGATING BETWEEN MICROMANAGEMENT AND LAISSEZ-FAIRE APPROACHES Micromanaging outsourcing partners is Impact Of Strategic Outsourcing On QA Oversight By Sponsor Companies B E A T W I D L E R , P H . D . R ecently, we have been observing a change in the approach to outsourcing — more midsize and large biopharmaceutical companies are shift- ing to a strategic outsourcing model. Strategic outsourcing generally means assigning work to one or a maximum of two preferred (strategic) partners. The scope of outsourced tasks, however, var- ies, and no preferred model can be iden- tified. For instance, some sponsor com- panies outsource all development activi- ties to their partner(s) and only keep a core team to manage the partnership and ensure alignment with functions and services that are considered strate- gic. Other sponsors limit their strategic partnerships to study management and monitoring, but keep most of the other activities needed to plan, implement, and manage a clinical development pro- gram in-house. WHAT DOES THIS CURRENT TREND MEAN REGARDING QUALITY AND COMPLIANCE? There is an old principle in quality man- agement: A company can delegate (e.g. outsource) tasks to third parties but will 0 3 1 4 _ C R O _ I n d u s t r y _ L e a d e r _ B e a t W i d l e r . i n d d 1 0314_CRO_Industry_Leader_BeatWidler.indd 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 4 1 : 5 4 : 0 9 P M 2/19/2014 1:54:09 PM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Life Science Leader Magazine Supplements - CRO Leadership Awards 2014