We Told You We're Different (And The Best)
By Louis Garguilo, Chief Editor, Outsourced Pharma
Most service companies regard themselves as different from their competitors. As a result of those differences, they’ll insist they are the best at exceeding their customers’ expectations. In the biotech and pharma industry, our annual CMO Leadership Awards are a way to verify that customers actually share those self-estimations of prowess. Additionally, the Awards serve global drug sponsors that more than any time in our history are constantly seeking the best prospective partners for drug development and manufacturing. You might say we’ve got both sides of outsourcing covered for our readers.
But there’s more. Today, sponsors and service providers are seeking advice on best practices and advanced methods for working together, improving productivity and project outcomes, and raising profitability while lowering costs for patients. That’s why, along with our listings of Award winners, this year’s supplement includes a select group of experienced industry veterans providing best practices and advice related to outsourcing and managing supply chains. Whether you’re new to working with contract development and manufacturing organizations, or somebody who’s been at this for years, I’m certain you’ll derive value in learning, or being reminded of, the strategies and tactics involved in the “artful” activity of outsourcing.
Regarding the “art” of surveying the outsourcing industry, this is our second year teaming up with Industry Standard Research (ISR). To obtain the most accurate survey results, ISR focuses on the attributes biopharma companies say are essential in deciding which CMOs best serve their clients: Quality, Reliability, Capabilities, Expertise, Compatibility — and our newest category — Development (i.e., development-related services).
Yet, even when using these common key attributes, we know that the strategic approaches to outsourcing vary significantly thanks to today’s widening categories of “sponsor” — from virtuals and startups, to more traditional biotechs and all-sized pharma companies. Thus, our challenge was to figure out how to capture this aspect without becoming too granular and ending up obscuring competitive results. Participants in our survey have told us the two additional sponsor categories we initiated last year — big pharma and small pharma — were helpful, so we’re sticking with these this year, too. However, we’re always open to new ideas regarding ways to more accurately measure performance.
And also here, on behalf of my colleagues at Life Science Leader, I’d like to say thank you to all of our readers who participated in the Awards survey for 2017. Likewise, my personal thank you to Tina Larson of Achaogen, for “opening up” on the state of our small and large molecule industries, and particularly the need for all of us to understand what really drives business decisions at drug sponsors. As important as the attributes that make up a winning CMO are, none will reach full potential benefit if not applied to the areas most important to sponsors. By the way, Larson, a member of the Outsourced Pharma Advisory Board, as well as the authors within these pages, will continue to provide us with unique content and insight throughout the rest of the year at OutsourcedPharma.com.
Finally, on behalf of everyone at Life Science Leader, a heartfelt congratulations to all our CMO Leadership Award winners!