The life sciences industry is embracing popular improvement practices, methods and tools. However, improvement methods are like surgical instruments – put in the wrong hands, in the wrong situation, and enormous value could be destroyed. Given the range of assessment models available, it is important to apply the right tool to the right job, and to manage this within your organization’s capacity.

The key to selecting the right improvement practices can be found by answering the following key questions: Where does an organization require improvement? What improvement options are available? Which option is the best to solve the problem or realize the opportunity?

Three popular assessment and improvement models have been embraced in the life sciences industry. Examining these and assessing their pros and cons provide a valuable picture of leading practices and considerations for selecting an improvement approach.

What To Look for in an Improvement Practice

Most improvement approaches fail in one of three ways:

– Lack the ability to identify exactly where a company should focus improvement efforts

– Fail to frame and provide transparency into the real problems or opportunities

– Provide direction regarding the right improvement options that should be applied from within and outside the industry sector

Often companies select an improvement method without considering the value of one practice versus an alternative. The right analysis approach should allow a company to:

– Focus: Frame and focus the problem in a comprehensive fashion, considering both the business strategy and operational deficiencies across the business

– Obtain an Outcome: Be outcome-based in terms of financial impact, a roadmap of actions, key performance indicator (KPI) targets and blueprint

– Compress Timeframes: Create results in a timely fashion in which recommendations are actionable, maximizing returns on effort and information

– Gain Explicit Understanding: Enable your company to identify explicit decisions along the way; for example, identify dynamic vs. static improvements. If a “patch” is required for a short-term problem, make an explicit decision that it is just a temporary fix. However, a long-term solution will be required to ensure sustainable performance improvement

– Achieve Success: Provide the right answer that allows for the highest probability of success at the lowest total cost of ownership

Companies should select an improvement model that allows for a holistic diagnostic that provides the right FOCUS. The chosen framework should have operational characteristics, such as KPIs and their associated benchmarks, proven leading practices within and outside the industry as well as risks with associated risk mitigation approaches. However, the improvement model must be able to incorporate the strategic thrust of the company as well. Finally, it is critical to select a framework that integrates insights, including technology, business model, product/service, customer, market, and policy/society.

Choosing a Practice That Works

Let’s examine the three assessment methods that are currently being applied in life sciences organizations and their associated pros, cons and limitations:

Recommendation

So, how should companies in the life sciences industry pursue improvement opportunities? We believe applying a new diagnostic framework called Industry Leading R&D Performance (ILRDP) is the best model to apply before pursuing any of the practices outlined above or any other improvement methods. ILRDP is a comprehensive model of a life sciences business on one page. A diagnostic framework within ILRDP allows one to assess approximately 100 business components – people, process and technology clusters. The assessment is performed from a “bottom-up” standpoint using benchmarks, leading practices comparisons and risk assessments to identify operational deficiency “hot spots.” The assessment is also performed from a “top-down” standpoint to identify the “hot spots” from a business strategy standpoint. A third insight assessment identifies external dynamics that are hot spots as well. By overlaying these three views, one can quickly gain surgical focus on what’s important and what’s not. An area that is operationally deficient but not strategically important may be prioritized below something of critical importance because it creates differentiation (from “top-down” strategic assessment), is too costly (from “bottom-up” operational assessment) and is important due to market shifts (insight assessment).

Once hot spots are identified and there is an understanding of the root cause of why these areas are “hot,” one can clearly select the appropriate improvement framework.

As far as the dynamics of this industry go, there is no question that popular new improvement practices, within a year of being introduced, will appear in every bioscience publication known to Google. They will indeed be used just as often. Before assuming an improvement practice is right for your organization, be sure to perform a robust assessment of your organizationsituation. Life sciences companies should be as analytical about selecting an appropriate improvement model as they are about following protocol in their drug development process. Take a holistic view in first identifying areas that should be addressed, then carefully select the improvement practice that will make the best impact. Keep in mind that selecting an approach means you are either explicitly or implicitly choosing not to select another, and there may be an opportunity to weight the costs/benefits of each practice, including the opportunity cost.

Remember to value the best ideas, not just the new ideas.

Rosemarie Truman is executive vice president at Advanced Clinical, a provider of consulting services, strategic sourcing (CRO), talent management, and technology solutions for the life sciences industry. She can be reached at [email protected].