Igniting Effective Partnerships and
Measuring the Results
Robert Kaminsky, MedSpan Research
Lindsey Thomas, Sagent Pharmaceuticals
Agenda
• Objectives
– Key takeaways
• Methodology
– Data collection
– Analysis
– Reporting
• Key Learnings
• Roll-out plan
2
Caveat
• The methodology we will review today was recently used for a study Sagent Pharmaceuticals sponsored.
• The data and results have been changed to protect Sagent’s proprietary interests.
• This particular case study isn’t market research as the manufacturer:
– Knew the participants by name
– Combined its data gathering with building relationships.
• We are presenting the case study to PMRG’s members as the methodology and insights are:
– Compelling
– Viable for pure, stand-alone marketing research if blinded.
3
Sagent Pharmaceuticals asked MedSpan to assess its relationships with its key manufacturing partners
Business Goal
Study Objectives
Strengthen Sagent’s
current relationships with
its key manufacturing
partners
Improve Sagent’s business
processes to set a stronger
foundation for future
relationships
• Assess key manufacturing
partners’ perceptions about their
relationships with Sagent
• Compare the key manufacturing
partners’ perceptions of Sagent to
their perceptions of other drug
companies
• Evaluate Sagent’s own
perceptions of its relationships
with its key manufacturing
partners
• Debunk internal misperceptions
of performance, if any
5
Key takeaways
• The strengths and weaknesses of relationships between companies can be measured.
• The analytical framework examines both business processes and relationship management skills.
• The perspectives of both parties should be taken into account through both qualitative and quantitative techniques.
• An analysis provides a framework for optimally allocating resources to strengthen business outcomes.
6
Methodology
Data Collection
Key executives and project personnel at
Sagent’s key manufacturing partners who
work directly with Sagent.
Sagent’s employees who have direct,
regular interactions with one or more key
manufacturing partners.
Sagent provided lists for recruiting its
own executives and those at its key
manufacturing partners.
Respondent Qualifications
When Two weeks for fielding
Where Global
Whom Internet Survey (20-30 minutes)• Key executives and project personnel
at Sagent’s manufacturing partners.• 40 Sagent employees
Phone Interviews (30 minutes)• Handful of Sagent-identified executives at
manufacturing partners who also completed the Internet survey
The study was not blinded.• The objective was to convey to each partner the importance to Sagent of these key business
relationships.
As the study was not blinded, no honorarium was offered.
8
Telephone interviews were conducted with senior executives after they completed the Internet survey
• Objectives of the telephone interviews included:
– Validating the accuracy of the data collected via the Internet survey.
– Developing a better understanding of the rationale underlying the data.
– Gathering specific recommendations for improving each manufacturing partner’s relationship with Sagent.
• Only senior executives were interviewed due to:
– The breadth of their relationship with Sagent.
– The importance of their perspective for the well-being of the relationship.
– Their ability to provide recommendations for improvement that might cut across multiple business processes.
9| PMRG Institute: Igniting Effective Partnerships and Measuring the Results
| Tuesday October 16, 2012 |
Executives from the key manufacturing partners and Sagent
employees evaluated their relationships from two perspectives
Perspective 2:
Relationship
Management
Skills
Each business process or skill category is composed of 5 to 10 detailed data elements.
BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIP
MANAGEMENT
BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT
PRODUCT
LABELING
REGULATORY
AFFAIRS
PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
LAUNCH PREP /
COMMERCIAL
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
COMMUNICATION
RESPONSIVENESSTRUSTWORTHINESS
TIMELINESS
RELIABILITYCREDIBILITY
ASSURANCE
PREPAREDNESSACCOUNTABILITY
Perspective 1:
Business
Processes
10
The analysis compared Sagent’s performance to three benchmarks
Sagent’s PerformanceCompetition’s
Average
Performance
Sagent’s Internal
Standard
of Excellence
Partners’
Minimum Level
of Acceptable
Performance
Goal
Identify:• Sagent’s competitive advantages and disadvantages for
each business process or category of relationship skill
• Opportunities for improvement in Sagent’s performance
12
We compare Sagent’s performance to the 3 benchmarks, first from a market perspective, and then from that of individual partners
Combined
Perception
Market-Oriented Evaluation
of Sagent’s Strengths
and Weaknesses
Individual
Partner
Perceptions
Sagent’s strengths and
weaknesses with
individual partners
Market Perspective
Individual Partner Perspective
Mfg Partners
1 + 2 + 3…n
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 3
Partner 4
13
Objective of market-level analysis is to identify consistency between partners
• The objective of market-level analysis is to identify consistency between partners.
– Consistent areas of improvement require fundamental change and improvement.
– Consistent strengths are those upon which to build.
• Addressing market-level weaknesses lays the foundation for stronger relationships with future partners.
• Differences between Sagent’s perspectives and those of the market indicate Sagent may be incorrectly investing its time and financial resources.
– Processes and skills that Sagent views as stronger than its partners do Lack of investment in areas where it is needed.
– Processes and skills that Sagent views as weaker than its partners do Potentially making investments in improvements where they are not needed.
15
Sagent’s performance confers a competitive advantage but often does not meet Sagent’s internal standard of excellence
The strength of
Sagent’s and
competitors’
business
processes and
relationship skills
exceeds minimum
requirements.
However, Sagent
does not meet its
internal standards
of excellence for
most of its
business process
and relationship
management skills.
Business Processes*
Always outstanding
performance
Always poor
performanceAlways outstanding
performance
Re
lati
on
sh
ip M
an
ag
em
en
t S
kil
ls*
*Average of ratings of executives from all partners
“Sagent’s level of
support and
service is
stupendous.
Other companies
communicate too
infrequently.”-Manufacturing
Partner Executive
16
Sagent delivers excellent business processes and relationship management skills but none meet its own standard of excellence
BenchmarkPartners’ Minimum
Acceptable PerformanceCompetition
Sagent’s Standard of Excellence
Business Processes
BP1
BP2
BP3
BP4
BP5
BP6
BP7
Relationship Management Skills
Communication
Responsiveness
Reliability
Credibility
Trustworthiness
Accountability
Assurance
Preparedness
Timeliness
Performance
meets or exceeds
benchmark
Opportunity for
improvement versus
benchmark
“Sagent has a great
product development
team. The few problems
we have are taken care
of very quickly.”-Manufacturing Partner
Executive
17
Sagent may be under-investing resources in one process but over-investing in another
Sagent may be over-investing
to strengthen its processes
Sagent may be under-investing
in improving its processes
BP7
BP5
BP4
BP3
BP2
BP6
BP1
Always outstanding
performance
Sagent’s self-ratingAlways FAIR
performanceAlways outstanding
performance
Part
ners
’ ra
tin
g o
f S
ag
en
t*“Sagent’s quality
requirements are
demanding but
appropriate.”-Manufacturing Partner
Executive
18
There are a few specific business process elements where Sagent’s self perceptions differ the most from its partners
Sagent’s most UNDER-VALUED business
process elements
Degree to which less improvement may
be warranted than underway today
BP1
Provides complete explanations for financial items
Provides clear and timely reporting
BP2
Begin negotiations and close deals in a timely manner
When needed, provides supplies reliably and on time
Provides reliable data
Sagent’s most OVER-VALUED business
process elements
Degree to which more improvement may
be warranted than underway today
BP5
Requires acceptable level of data
Provide outstanding expertise
Requires acceptable oversight
Resolve issues to our mutual benefit
19
Partner 4’s relationship with Sagent is strongest, while Partner 1’s is the least strong
• Each partner views Sagent's performance as stronger than Sagent views its own performance.
– This disconnect may encourage Sagent to invest in improvements that are unnecessary.
• There are opportunities for improvement with each partner.
Perceptions of Business Processes Perceptions of Relationship Skills
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 4
Partner 3
Partner 1
Partner 2
Partner 4
Partner 3
21
Sagent has three options for addressing its relationships with its manufacturing partners
Sagent can react to each of the study’s
findings in one of three ways...
Build upon strengths
Improve weaknesses
Agree to disagree with partner’s
feedback
22
Partner 1 suggests Sagent has many areas needing improvement while “BP7” and relationship skills are strengths
BenchmarkActavis’ Minimum
Acceptable PerformanceCompetition
Sagent’s Standard of Excellence = 6/7
Business Processes
BP1
BP2 ** ** **
BP3
BP4
BP5
BP6
BP7
Relationship Management Skills
Communication
Responsiveness
Reliability
Credibility
Trustworthiness
Accountability
Assurance
Preparedness
Timeliness
**Not evaluated by any of Partner 1’s executives
Sagent strength
Opportunity for
improvement
“We benefit from
Sagent’s experience.
Our team’s activity
was improved by
Sagent’s feedback.”-Operations Project
Manager
23
BP3 presents the greatest improvement opportunity while BP5 is Sagent’s greatest strength with Partner 1
Greatest Opportunities for Improvement with Partner 1
Business Processes
BP3
Facilitate more timely interactions
Communicate changes in expectations
more clearly
Deliver more accurate reporting
Communicate BP3 changes more clearly
BP4Require less documentation
Determine requirements more accurately
BP6 Require less interaction
BP7
Prepare and submit more effective responses to issues
Negotiate agreements in a more timely manner
Greatest Strengths with Partner 1
Business Processes
BP5
Reverts comments on proposals in
a timely fashion
Clearly communicates
requirements
Clearly communicates priorities
across multiple projects
BP1Provides a business relationship that is worth the effort required toachieve success
Relationship Management Skills
Communication Communicates courteously
24
Conclusions
• There are opportunities for improvement.
• Goal:
• Meet Sagent’s own standards of excellence.
Key Learnings
• Define Sagent’s standards of excellence in concrete and measurable terms.
• Develop concrete strategies and tactics.
• Educate employees.
• Periodically measure and report on progress
Conclusions and Recommendations – Market-wide Perspective
26| PMRG Institute: Igniting Effective Partnerships and Measuring the Results
| Tuesday October 16, 2012 |
Conclusions and Recommendations – Individual Partner Perspective
Conclusions
• Specific processes and skills require improvement.
• Areas of improvement differ for each manufacturing partner.
Key Learnings• Meet with each partner to
• Explore incidents and issues.
• Agree on measurable goals for improvement.
• Develop approaches for better meeting each other’s needs.
• Agree on methods for periodic measuring and reporting on improvement.
• Educate employees
27
It is important to share the study’s results throughout the organization to gain consensus on improvement
Interim topline
presentation
Steering committee
review
Senior management
review
Departmental reviews
Audience Senior/dept
management
Gain buy-in to
the process
Completion of
fielding
Steering committee
- Validate findings
- Approve for further
dissemination
Completion of
analysis
Senior management
- Agree on roll-out plan
- Explore key initiatives to
address findings
Two weeks after steering
committee review
Departmental mgmt
Explore key initiatives to
address dept findings
1 to 3 months after senior
management review
Objectives
Timing
29
This methodology is broadly applicable in the assessment of a variety of relationships.
Manufacturing
R&D
Administrative Services
Sales/Marketing
Types of
External
Relationships
“Soft” relationship management skills are integral to successful partnerships
Relationship Management Skill
Definition
COMMUNICATION Clear and timely sharing of information
RESPONSIVENESS Promptly addressing the manufacturing partner’s requests and needs
RELIABILITY Dependability and appropriateness of interactions
CREDIBILITY Belief in Sagent’s or other client’s expertise and its application to manufacturing
partner’s needs
TRUSTWORTHINESSHonesty demonstrated, and faith engendered, by manufacturing partner’s
clients
ACCOUNTABILITY Responsibility client assumes for their decisions and actions
ASSURANCE Trust client fosters by understanding and meeting your needs
PREPAREDNESS Client’s organization and readiness for interactions with manufacturing partner
TIMELINESSDegree to which client meets deadlines while continuing to provide high quality
service
32
The study evaluated many relationships to provide context
for the results
Manufacturing
Partners
Client 1
Client 2
Client 3
33
Each business process was composed of 5 to 10 detailed data elements• Example: Clarity of product labeling
– Each of Sagent’s manufacturing partners rated the strength of four clients’ (i.e., Sagent’s and three other clients’) product labeling processes.
– For each criterion, each of Sagent’s manufacturing partners rated:
• Each client’s performance (1=poor performance; 7=outstanding performance):
• Minimum level of performance the manufacturing partner would find acceptable from any client.
• If a criterion did not apply to a respondent’s job responsibility, they entered 0.
• Example of QA evaluation criteria from the manufacturing partner’s perspective:
The pharmaceutical partner ALWAYS... Minimum Sagent Client 1 Client 2 Client 3
Clearly communicates labeling requirements
Clearly communicates print quality
requirements
Requires an acceptable level of labeling
documentation
Reverts changes in a timely fashion
34
Each relationship skill category also was composed of 5 to 10 detailed data elements
• Examples of Communication evaluation criteria:
– Instructions and column headings for each manufacturing partner’s and for Sagent’s executives were the same as for the questions regarding business processes.
The pharmaceutical partner's written,
oral or electronic communications are
ALWAYS:
Minimum Sagent Client 1 Client 2 Client 3
Well-organized
Clear
Complete
Courteous
Occurs often enough to meet my needs
At a reasonable frequency (i.e. not too often
and not too rarely)
35