Thought Leader Programs: A Competition Pharma Industry Cannot Afford to Harbor
The 2006 Edition of "Medical Science Liaison Program Metrics: Industry Survey and Critical Issues" contains original 2004 survey data plus previously unpublished primary research, including MSL survey aggregate data and interview transcript with a delegate from DDMAC.
Redondo Beach, CA (PRWEB) January 11, 2006
"Medical Science Liaison Program Metrics: Industry Survey and Critical Issues" is updated with secondary research through 2005 and critical management issues that medical directors can expect in the next five years.
This updated report is for medical directors who wishes to:
-Benchmark their program metrics against industry trends
-Gain senior management support for their metrics approaches
-Show cause for concern in potentially risky metrics approaches
-Dispel management misperception of MSLs’ “regulatory privileges”
-Formulate metrics approaches most likely to be accepted by MSLs thereby reducing talent attrition.
"Medical Science Liaison Program Metrics: Industry Survey and Critical Issues" provides for medical directors an objective and fair-balanced representation of performance metrics from both Management’s perspective AND Medical Liaisons’ perspective.
New medical directors may use this report to anticipate and address critical issues in MSL programs when building new MSL teams.
"Medical Science Liaison Program Metrics: Industry Survey and Critical Issues" is based on original research by Dr. Jane Chin, PhD, who is a coauthor of "Next Generation MSL Programs" published in October 2005.
"These two reports form the contextual landscape of how MSL programs have evolved," said Dr. Chin.
Chin has observed an increasing awareness of a need for appropriate MSL metrics from medical directors and regards the evolution of MSL metrics as mostly positive.
However Dr. Chin warned of an ominous trend of a splintering of MSL's thought leader programs with commercial functions' thought leader programs.
Chin predicts the next five years to bode a confrontation between commercial function's hard, objective metrics and medical function's soft, often-subjective metrics.
"We may see competing thought leader programs within the very same organization, going after the same resources," said Chin, "and this is a competition the Industry cannot afford to harbor."
Aggregate MSL survey data in "Medical Science Liaison Program Metrics: Industry Survey and Critical Issues" focused on MSLs' responses to key questions like "What should be the standard job description of MSLs?" and "Does healthcare experience of MSL leadership matter?" These questions are designed to provide medical directors insight into their management challenges for the future. Rarely will medical directors get opinions at this visceral level from MSLs in the trenches.
The report also provides a transcript of an interview with a DDMAC delegate, whose identity remained anonymous at the delegate's request. Chin asks the very questions medical directors want to ask regulators - Does it matter if MSLs make joint calls with sales reps, How do you tell a scientific discussion from a promotional discussion, and What regulators consider as red flags in promotional behaviors.
Go to this report at Medical Science Liaison Program Metrics Benchmark Survey at http://www. MSLbestpractices. com (http://www. MSLbestpractices. com) or http://www. MSLmetrics. com (http://www. MSLmetrics. com)
###
