Life Science Leader Magazine Supplements

CRO Leadership Awards 2017

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 25 of 45

then do not have to be discussed or negotiated at the start of every project. Furthermore, as sponsors tend to use their preferred providers again and again, efficiencies in the working rela- tionships can be realized. However, when there are no PPAs in place, details must be hammered out anew for each project, and there may not be a pre-established working relationship. These factors may play large roles in why those with no preferred provider agreements place more importance on being Easy to work with . For decision makers whose companies have sophis- ticated outsourcing processes, using peer-based data can assist in evaluating CROs. Those at larger, more sophisticated sponsor organizations often focus much of their work on a set of preferred providers but may need to consider a broader set of CROs when preferred providers are not available. Utilizing data from peers' experiences can arm deci- sion makers with the knowledge to make more educat- ed decisions throughout the outsourcing process. The data and resources are there. All you need to do is lift the blindfold. L Survey Methodology: ISR's CRO Quality Benchmarking research is con- ducted annually via an online survey. For the 2017 CRO Awards data, more than 60 service providers were evaluated on over 25 different performance metrics. Research participants were recruited from biopharma and medical device companies of all sizes and are screened for decision-making influ- ence and authority when it comes to working with CROs. Respondents evaluate only companies with which they have worked on an out- sourced project within the past 18 months. This level of qualification ensures that quality ratings come from actual involvement with a business and that companies identified as leaders are backed by experiential data. Figure 2 contains the seven most important attributes for each decision-making scenario when selecting a Phase 2/3 provider. For comparison and completeness, ranks for attributes that are in the top seven attributes for one scenario but not for others are shown in paren- theses. Several interesting findings come to light when selection attributes are approached in this manner: ▶ Operational excellence is king. There's no getting around it. This attribute is the most important selection driver regardless of the decision-making scenario. Providers need to prove that they are operationally proficient to win sponsors' trust. ▶ Also universally important are Prior positive experience with service provider and Therapeutic expertise , ranking between slots 2 and 4 in each scenario. ▶ Experience with similar study types is important for all scenarios but carries the most weight when sponsors are choosing a provider that is not among their preferred providers. One reason why sponsors may choose to use a pro- vider outside of their list is for a specialized study type with which their preferred provid- ers might not have much experience. Ranking Experience with similar study types so highly is likely due to the search for providers with a specific expertise or skillset. ▶ Easy to work with has its highest importance ranking when a company does not have preferred providers. When a sponsor selects a company as a preferred provider, there are many decision points that can be universally agreed upon and TOP PHASE 2/3 SELECTION ATTRIBUTES BY DECISION-MAKING SCENARIO Top Phase 2/3 Attribute Choosing among preferred providers Choosing a provider not on the preferred list No preferred provider list Operational excellence 1 1 1 Prior positive experience with service provider 2 4 2 Therapeutic expertise 3 3 3 Global footprint 4 5 6 Project manager quality 5 (15) 4 Experience with similar study types 6 2 5 Patient recruitment strategy 7 (9) (8) Low cost (9) 6 (12) Easy to work with (17) (13) 7 Network of sites/investigators (11) 7 (18) Source: Industry Standard Research, CRO Quality Benchmarking Report Suite (2017) Figure 2 CRO SELECTION OUtsourcing By R. McAvoy EXPERIENTIAL DATA SHEDS LIGHT ON THE CRO SELECTION PROCESS LIFESCIENCELEADER.COM THE CRO LEADERSHIP AWARDS 2017 24

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Life Science Leader Magazine Supplements - CRO Leadership Awards 2017