|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although conceptually simple, strategic portfolio review is demanding in terms of information required, but a structured review process will give the organization fresh insights and perspectives on familiar issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cornerstone of the process is the Product Profile. This should be jointly generated by R&D and Commercial groups and should describe the characteristics and features of the product that appears in the marketplace. Key features, such as likely indications, expected therapeutic advantage, advance over gold standard (the best available treatment at the time of launch), and likelihood of reimbursement are included. It also indicates upside and downside potential and the factors which contribute to those positions. The downside profile is usually the minimum acceptable product for the company. Based on the profile, an assessment is made of the likelihood of success and value. Importantly, it recognizes that, ultimately, value is determined only by the customer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Key considerations are transparency of the process and the need to ensure that the best available knowledge has been incorporated. A wide spectrum of project staff and line managers must be involved to enable this. Responsibilities must be clearly defined, but the aim is to ensure rigorous debate leading to shared understanding between project and line staff and across corporate functions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Data should be analyzed in various ways to help decision making and to recognize that there are many different portfolios represented by the pool of development projects. It should also be noted that effective portfolio review is a continuous process, not just an exercise conducted annually to feed a strategic plan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IV.
Portfolio Review Inputs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This section illustrates, in more detail, the key elements which must be considered for each entity under review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aim is to enable the organization to understand the broad aims of the research being conducted and the likelihood that it is converted to products with the desired profile. Research reviews have traditionally been scientifically focused and conducted through peer review. This process ensures that thinking is not constrained to a narrow therapeutic focus, and it tests scientific rigor throughout the discovery and development process. Its great strengths must be complemented by closely aligning marketing and research |
|
|
|
|
|