Life Science Leader Magazine Supplements

CMO 2016

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 41 of 63

REPORT 42 LIFESCIENCELEADER.COM THE CMO LEADERSHIP AWARDS 2016 By K. Hammeke THE VALUE OF EXPERIENTIAL DATA IN MAKING INFORMED CMO SELECTION DECISIONS INDUSTRY STANDARD RESEARCH the 26 performance metrics as "Top 5" and the "Most Important" when it comes to selecting a CMO. The metric deemed most important — strong regulatory track record — by the largest percentage of respondents, only captured 14 percent of the vote; 40 percent of respondents included this metric in the Top 5. A track record of meeting quality performance metrics and a proven ability to manu- facture API tied for second position, with 10 percent of respondents stating one of these metrics is the most impor- tant attribute. Yet only one-quarter of respondents included these metrics in their Top 5, suggesting that these par- ticular metrics carry significant weight to a fraction of buyers of outsourced services, but are less significant in CMO selection among a larger portion of the outsourcing audience. Reliable on-time delivery was the only other metric to be deemed the most important criterion by roughly one in 10 respondents (and among the Top 5 of 41 percent of respon- dents). Then, there is a steep drop-off in agreement on the most important selection attribute, and the next five metrics are each considered the most important to one in 20 respondents. Some of the challenges of making an informed CMO selection decision can be alleviated by knowing which CMO performance metrics have positively contributed to successful outsourcing relationships among peers and then which CMOs have performed best on these metrics for their customers. The data in Figure 1 displays how the performance metrics are ranked by buyers of outsourced services and which award categories correspond to the performance metric. This data can be coupled with the 2016 CMO Leadership Awards winners list to help identify best matching CMOs for upcom- ing outsourced work. A mix of contract manufacturers with respect to both size/capacity and scope of offering won CMO Leadership Awards in 2016 based on how well these businesses performed for real clients in recent history. Using this data to support your company's CMO vetting process (or to understand your company's relative position to its CMO peers) will put you on the path toward a successful partnership. L If you want to learn more about the report or how to participate, please contact Andrew Schafer, president, or Kate Hammeke, market research director, at Industry Standard Research by sending an email to or A . S C H A F E R Survey Methodology: Industry Standard Research's Contract Manufacturing Quality Benchmarking research is conducted annually via an online survey. For the 2016 CMO Awards data, more than 80 con- tract manufacturers were evaluated on 26 different performance metrics. Research participants were recruited from biopharmaceutical companies of all sizes and are screened for decision-making infuence and authority when it comes to working with contract manufacturing suppliers. Respondents only evaluate companies with which they have worked on an outsourced project within the past 18 months. This level of qualifcation ensures that quality ratings come from actual involvement with a business and that companies identifed as leaders are backed by experiential data. AWARD CATEGORY PERFORMANCE METRICS PRIORITY Strong regulatory track record 40% 14% Track record for meeting quality performance metrics 27% 10% Proven ability to manufacture API/dosage forms we require 27% 10% Reliable on-time delivery 41% 9% Has capacity to meet our demands 36% 6% Ability to smoothly scale up manufacturing and transfer technology 23% 6% Low cost 32% 5% Scientific knowledge 30% 5% Experience level of staff 29% 3% Right first-time measurements 14% 3% Offers innovative solutions 9% 3% Well-regarded within the industry 17% 2% Facility has most up-to-date manufacturing tech- nologies 17% 2% Flexibility to adjust schedule for special requests 14% 2% Metrics for meeting overall project timelines 12% 2% Up-front contingency planning, risk management 10% 2% Stability testing capabilities 10% 2% Timely project communications 17% 1% Financial strength/ stability 17% 1% Access to desired markets 6% 1% All facilities fully owned (i.e., not subcontracted) 6% 1% Complementary core competencies to in-house or other manufacturing contractors 6% 1% Provides regulatory support for filing 11% 1% Cultural fit 10% 0% Storage capabilities 7% 0% Accessible senior management 5% 0% QUALITY RELIABILITY EXPERTISE CAPABILITIES COMPATIBILITY TOP 5 Figure 1 MOST IMPORTANT

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Life Science Leader Magazine Supplements - CMO 2016