Pharmaceutical Executive Europe - April 2008 - (Page 25) Pharmaceutical Executive Europe April 2008 Technology: CIO Focus 25 entire organisation to ensure that the right level of service is delivered to everyone. Think of these people as being analogous to your personal banker at the local branch. They help you locally but follow the corporate rules of engagement. In the context of IM asset consolidation, the word holistic means that every system and every process throughout the organisation be examined to determine the potential for consolidation, rationalisation and streamlining without forgetting individual differences among the affected organisations. Holistic does not necessarily mean that everyone ends up using the same system. It does mean that everyone gets what they need and are not left out of the process. A holistic approach to IM also means that there are other context areas that need to be considered. For example, IM is not only practised within the walls of your enterprise but also within the walls of your business partners. This means that the CIO must also expand his/her sphere of influence where it has not necessarily been welcome before. Take, for example, the area of product promotion. Is there not a role for corporate IM in maximising the productivity of product web sites traditionally set up and operated by external vendors? The same holds true for EDC or CTM systems run by CROs or investigative sites. Or for warehousing and logistics systems run by wholesalers, distributors and transportation companies. The bottom line. As you rethink IM, consider how information technology is already leveraged by the business community and determine what the proper role of corporate IM should be in each discreet area. ■ PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT? Preferred Software Partner Agreements — A Dangerous Precedent In the last four years, several major pharmaceutical firms on both sides of the Atlantic have signed preferred software partner agreements with a few very large software firms. For pharma, the key anticipated benefits are the ability to lower their software acquisition and maintenance costs and increase the level of service received from the partner. For the software firm, the agreement potentially delivers a consistent flow of revenue, simplifies resource allocation and helps build or protect market share for their products. On the surface, such agreements seem to create a win–win situation. A closer look, however, reveals that such agreements are misguided at best and potentially injurious to both parties. First, the cost savings are normally realised by lowering or holding steady the cost of license fees and services to the vendor partner. Rather than questioning the cost of these items in the first place or evaluating potentially greater savings from other vendors, the buyer takes the easy way out to show ‘savings’ to management. Second, the agreement normally serves as an exclusionary method for derailing the normal vendor selection process and forces those implementing and/or using the software to settle for a sub-optimal solution. The ‘improved’ level of services expected from the software vendor are refocused on making up for missing features that in the typical procurement process would have eliminated the vendor. Third, the management responsible for sponsoring the agreement undermines the needs and expertise of the implementation project teams and user communities by dictating solutions that they know to be below par. Not only is there the real danger that the system will not be used or fail to deliver the expected operating efficiencies, but confidence in management’s ability to lead or have respect for their judgment will be undermined if not lost in entirety. Such agreements can also have negative consequences for the software vendor. The level of service required to deliver what is expected will either wipe out the anticipated profit margin or force the vendor to request a renegotiation of the agreement. Under such a scenario, at least one and most likely both parties will suffer and the relationship will be harmed. In addition, the failure of one project run under the umbrella of the agreement will poison the potential success of any other projects that fall under the same agreement. By extension, a bad experience with one software product may negatively bias the customer toward other products from the same company. Companies that know the importance of evaluating the safety and efficacy of their own products should keep the same things in mind before entering into preferred software vendor agreements with anyone. In most cases, they are simply not worth it.
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.