Pharmaceutical companies are recognizing that “MSLs work!”. Regulatory agencies are also recognizing that “MSLs work!” because MSLs’ relationships with thought leaders can sometimes bypass compliance
November 3, 2005 (Press Release) --
Read Full Text: http://www.msliq.com/mslmetrics/pressrelease20051103.html
In the last two years, pharmaceutical executives have become more open to sharing metrics-related information at industry forums. Medical Science Liaison (MSL) Managers and directors are voicing their opinions about which metrics have worked and which metrics have backfired for their MSL teams - and most agreed that activity-based metrics convey little meaning to the true contributions of their field-based medical teams. However, activity-based metrics have remained strong across the industry.
MSL directors confronted with demonstrating MSL value within a compliant environment may have to ask, “Are some numbers more compliant than others?”
- Does setting reach-and-frequency quota make for good relationship building or imply promotional solicitations?
- Should MSLs working within an on-label-only area have their performance measured by market share change in on-label product sales?*
- Would numbers that impose a quality scale offset suspicion around numbers measuring only activities?
- Could requiring MSLs to assess their thought leader development along a Likert-Scale of 1 to 5 be misinterpreted as promoting advocacy?
As pharmaceutical companies continue reshaping their policies and SOPs to create an OIG-compliant environment, pharmaceutical executives may want to keep in mind an adage with fortune-cookie potential:
“When stakeholders and employees agree on the meaning of metrics used to measure employee performance, the company is harmonious.
When stakeholders and employees disagree on the meaning of metrics used to measure employee performance, the company is not harmonious.”
##### This article highlights some points from the 144-research report, ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ by Jane Chin and Elio Evangelista. Pharmaceutical executives have used ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ to:
- benchmark MSL program structures against competitor companies
- justify for additional resources for MSL programs
- structure MSL programs to adjust to major trends in compliance and regulatory restrictions
- coordinate interactions with key internal stakeholders
- conserve budgets by funding key activities.
Pharmaceutical executives who have used ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ include:
- MSL program directors
- Thought leader management directors
- Therapeutic team leaders
- Brand directors
- Product managers
- Marketing executives
- Functional area analysts and executives in Market Research, Thought Leader Development, and Advertising
- Brand team members
Information on customized data and key findings in this report:
http://www.mslpharmaprograms.com/metrics.htm#body
Download report summary:
http://www.cuttingedgeinfo.com/reports/PH75_download.asp#body
In the last two years, pharmaceutical executives have become more open to sharing metrics-related information at industry forums. Medical Science Liaison (MSL) Managers and directors are voicing their opinions about which metrics have worked and which metrics have backfired for their MSL teams - and most agreed that activity-based metrics convey little meaning to the true contributions of their field-based medical teams. However, activity-based metrics have remained strong across the industry.
MSL directors confronted with demonstrating MSL value within a compliant environment may have to ask, “Are some numbers more compliant than others?”
- Does setting reach-and-frequency quota make for good relationship building or imply promotional solicitations?
- Should MSLs working within an on-label-only area have their performance measured by market share change in on-label product sales?*
- Would numbers that impose a quality scale offset suspicion around numbers measuring only activities?
- Could requiring MSLs to assess their thought leader development along a Likert-Scale of 1 to 5 be misinterpreted as promoting advocacy?
As pharmaceutical companies continue reshaping their policies and SOPs to create an OIG-compliant environment, pharmaceutical executives may want to keep in mind an adage with fortune-cookie potential:
“When stakeholders and employees agree on the meaning of metrics used to measure employee performance, the company is harmonious.
When stakeholders and employees disagree on the meaning of metrics used to measure employee performance, the company is not harmonious.”
##### This article highlights some points from the 144-research report, ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ by Jane Chin and Elio Evangelista. Pharmaceutical executives have used ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ to:
- benchmark MSL program structures against competitor companies
- justify for additional resources for MSL programs
- structure MSL programs to adjust to major trends in compliance and regulatory restrictions
- coordinate interactions with key internal stakeholders
- conserve budgets by funding key activities.
Pharmaceutical executives who have used ‘Next-Generation MSL Programs: Performance Metrics and Value’ include:
- MSL program directors
- Thought leader management directors
- Therapeutic team leaders
- Brand directors
- Product managers
- Marketing executives
- Functional area analysts and executives in Market Research, Thought Leader Development, and Advertising
- Brand team members
Information on customized data and key findings in this report:
http://www.mslpharmaprograms.com/metrics.htm#body
Download report summary:
http://www.cuttingedgeinfo.com/reports/PH75_download.asp#body
Email
Print
SPAM
