Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - (Page 21) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe February 2008 Q&A: Competitive Intelligence 21 PEE: Are the CI professionals now imposing an ethical and legal framework on the discipline? NM: What you have to do is create an atmosphere that makes it clear that this is not espionage; it’s actually competitive analysis. [Companies] are nervous about us interviewing people, yet they let market research run around freely; in some places, though, I think it’s getting entrenched: the more that product managers and people in the field experience good intelligence, the more they realise they need that decision-making. [CI] is a very positive aspect: we need to get past this psychological concept that there’s something scary about it. That’s disappointing, because I’ve been in the field for 17 years now. We want to hold the pharmaceutical industry to a higher standard because it is regulated and healthcare-related. It’s important that we maintain a very high standard in anything that we do, from manufacturing to planning, to intelligence. PEE: Could CI ever become solely an in-house function? NM: Most companies have their own internal CI already but this is a function that lends itself particularly well to small consulting groups. When I first started, I was an internal person and I used to make the calls myself. 50% of the time, when I mentioned that I was with a competitor company, I got passed to the legal department, and they would ask “Why are you calling?” I would tell them I was calling investor relations, which is their conduit to public information, so what exactly was the problem? I was calling the company’s public face and asking about information they’d already given out. This is why CI lends itself to smaller research organisations, because they don’t raise that immediate red flag. Most companies are out there talking about their product line; particularly by Phase III, the industry wants to raise awareness among physicians, so most of the branded companies are talking about their portfolios: they’re talking about their developments, they’re giving their financial information; it’s required by regulatory governments. They’re doing it to promote the company and drive the stock. Governments are now asking for clinical trials data to be made public. There is a lot of public information available — CI is about how you get it, synthesise it, analyse it, and then use some of the primary interviews to give further insights. The CI function has already proven itself. I’ve seen a lot of companies grow: more professionals joining the ranks, larger departments, bigger budgets I would say that at least 80% of Big Pharma has their own organised, professional, internal CI groups. PEE: Is CI still a growing function? NM: It’s growing, but it’s not a straight growth path. It depends on the companies, the people in charge, senior management’s perception. There was a study showing that, across all industries, the average lifespan of a CI group was four years; then, two years later, they get rebanded, because people recognise the value that they brought. So it’s a slow, up-and-down progress. Eventually, I hope that it becomes as acceptable as market research. Market research originally came out of military intelligence in the 1940s. It was, at the time, not an accepted practice and it took time to establish itself. But by the 1970s, who didn’t have market research? PEE: What about protecting information? NM: Filing patents, trade secrets, and security and legal departments are already involved in that aspect, but CI training helps people to begin to realise how they can get insights from conversations and become more careful about what they share with outside vendors or in the public arena. CI’s role in that is doing the training and understanding how this works; it’s a lot of little pieces that you get the picture from. It’s not like anybody is going to say “Here’s my whole strategic plan,” but you might give an insight that someone who’s knowledgeable about the industry would be able to put together and give some insights upon “from my experience and what I’ve heard, this is what’s going on…” A good CI effort should always lead to improved protection. PEE: So you’re saying that necessity overwhelms ‘squeamishness’ about this? NM: Practicality does it. I once had a senior VP who said “I could eliminate all support groups, and then, obviously, I’m still going to have to make decisions. Unfortunately, there’ll be more errors in those decisions and it’ll cost the company more than those functions did, otherwise we wouldn’t have those functions.” CI now falls in that kind of support area where it improves knowledge; data improves decision-making and lowers risk. PEE: Roughly how much, proportionately, should companies spend on protecting and gathering sensitive data? NM: Most CI groups are fairly small: maybe $800000 to $3 million. If you add in some of the bigger companies, they may be spending $8–10 million, which is fairly small compared to market research. I would debate the term “sensitive data,” though; it’s not sensitive because in fact we’re removing that danger by collecting it. If you’re a true CI professional, you’re never going to go after proprietary data, and you’re never going to induce people to break their confidentiality commitment to their company. Neil Mahoney: Profile Neil Mahoney is currently principal of Global Business Management Concepts, Inc (“GBMC”; US), a consulting firm focusing on the healthcare industry in the area of portfolio optimisation through the use of competitive intelligence techniques.
Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 Contents From the Editor News and Analysis Brussels Report Calendar R&D: Innovation - Learning to Share Drug Launch - The Preparation Game Q&A - Getting a Head Start Regulatory Compliance - Credible Compliance Clinical Trials - Establishing Trials in China The Mix - Relevant ROI Comment - Taming the Trader Last Word - Under the Microscope Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 (Page 1) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 (Page 2) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Contents (Page 3) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - From the Editor (Page 4) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - From the Editor (Page 5) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - News and Analysis (Page 6) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - News and Analysis (Page 7) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Brussels Report (Page 8) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Brussels Report (Page 9) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Calendar (Page 10) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - R&D: Innovation - Learning to Share (Page 11) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - R&D: Innovation - Learning to Share (Page 12) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - R&D: Innovation - Learning to Share (Page 13) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - R&D: Innovation - Learning to Share (Page 14) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - R&D: Innovation - Learning to Share (Page 15) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Drug Launch - The Preparation Game (Page 16) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Drug Launch - The Preparation Game (Page 17) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Drug Launch - The Preparation Game (Page 18) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Drug Launch - The Preparation Game (Page 19) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Q&A - Getting a Head Start (Page 20) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Q&A - Getting a Head Start (Page 21) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Regulatory Compliance - Credible Compliance (Page 22) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Regulatory Compliance - Credible Compliance (Page 23) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Clinical Trials - Establishing Trials in China (Page 24) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Clinical Trials - Establishing Trials in China (Page 25) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Clinical Trials - Establishing Trials in China (Page 26) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Clinical Trials - Establishing Trials in China (Page 27) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - The Mix - Relevant ROI (Page 28) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - The Mix - Relevant ROI (Page 29) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - The Mix - Relevant ROI (Page 30) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - The Mix - Relevant ROI (Page 31) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Comment - Taming the Trader (Page 32) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - February 2008 - Last Word - Under the Microscope (Page 33)
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.