3. The Organisation's Castle

(Series Index)

<In future years, BioPharma organisations will need to as efficiently as they can to thrive in a much more challenging commercial world. This series of articles explores what might need to happen to the 'standard model' of collaboration in project work.>

Roughly twelve years ago, I was working with a large EU Pharma company, observing an offsite meeting. Instead of displaying any of the behaviours discussed in the previous article, on this occasion, all of the company's people got together as one seamless unit! On my previous visits, this was far from the case. But this time they'd united to face a 'common enemy' - reps from a CRO. Things were sociable and chatty over coffee, but when they sat down at the table, everyone positioned themselves for an interrogation. All the Pharma lot on one side, all the CRO people on the other. The Pharma CPM shared the clinical Sites' / patient recruitment spreadsheet and went straight into questioning why Site 1 hadn't achieved its targets. Many of the Pharma reps joined in. The CRO staff did what many suppliers would do: defended themselves as best they could while trying to avoid any criticism of the Pharma team's management. There were 10 sites to review. Half the meeting raced by, just generating an action plan for Site 1. (This was actually a new set of instructions for the CRO to comply with, which even from my external perspective, I could tell weren't going to be carried out.) The meeting fizzled out without completing its agenda.

I was asked for some facilitation advice, for the next meeting. It transformed the atmosphere, even though it didn't take a genius intervention on my part. They started very differently, with everyone having a chance to say what they felt about progress. People listened. Many more actual facts and honest observations came out.

Where are we now?

No need to say much more about the above scenario, save that many of you would recognise it. A partnership managed with a lack of trust and a blame culture. But you may be forgiven for thinking that the story is twelve years old: Surely much has improved since then?

The answer is: yes of course it has. It's had to. It's impossible to develop medicines as a company without alliances and partnerships. Fairly recent research emphasises this. It's calculated that organisations that rely on alliances the most, have 27% greater growth than those that have the least reliance (see Ref. 1). Yet all is still not well. In the same paper, the failure rates for alliances haven't altered much since the 1990s. Some 60% fail, or partially fail to hit their objectives - and these figures exclude those that fail for technical/scientific reasons.

As for contracting CDMOs, there is a deal more realism and trust in general. Yet it's still fragile. I recall co-presenting at a clinical conference in 2014, where we were recommending that sponsors pay CDMOs - just before inking the deal - to engage in a joint risk assessment, to get real about the most likely costs; I was at a webinar a few weeks ago where the same thing was being discussed, with much wise nodding, but little sign that it had ever happened.

How does this relate to the Matrix?

It does, but to digress a little more. History is littered with deals that went horribly wrong, and there's always an intense focus on getting a partnership deal right. And rightly so. I recently attended a One Nucleus meeting about key risks for Biotechs in future. Discussed were staffing difficulties, funding challenges, cyber attacks. But also nasty things that had happened to CDMO deals. Very difficult to anticipate and causing frustrating gridlocks. Critically, in a separate company to one's own and out of your control. It's no wonder we value Alliance/Outsourcing managers, who's critical job is to ensure a sponsoring company's various functions are all involved, informed in the most careful scrutiny and risk assessment for a deal.

Yet as well as this, as much risk lies in the execution of a joint project (see Ref. 2). This relies on several factors, less tangible than the contracting legalities, and easily skimped. Firstly, a joint governance approach that ensures mutual understanding of objectives, plus mandating high levels of collaboration. Secondly, a 'one-team' approach.A cross organisations' group of experts that will deliver the project. This may not be quite the same as an internal matrix, but the principles, and need, as the same.

I have met alliance managers who have often struggled to overcome execution challenges. They've had to help project teams with intense stakeholder management, to ensure communication challenges work as they should; to prevent managers on either side giving conflicting instructions; to ensure clarity and let the experts work together and get the job done.

It's a vital role. But looking to the coming years, I have to ask whether we should do better than this?

Alliance 2030

The critical tactic is the same as it is always been: putting talented people from different organisations together so that they can deliver great outcomes. One might ask why it has always been so difficult? But practically we have to acknowledge the very real past challenges.

However, to the real point of this blog series in the future, it must not be this difficult. At all..

John Faulkes, June 2025.

In case you missed it - the previous article in this series: 'Functional Silos - Alive and Well'.

Look out for the next article in this series: 'How to make a Matrix work now'

Can we help? We are happy to talk! Get a performance diagnosis, the right training or team coaching. If it's outside your remit connect us with your COO! Contact Us to chat.

References

1. The State of Alliance Management in 2022 and Beyond - Vantage Partners

2. 21 Alliance Execution Challenges - Vantage Partners 2018