Tag Archives: culture

Drug Quality Imbroglio And ‘Culture of Bending Rules’ in India

Posted on by
Reply

“Bottle Of Lies Exposes The Dark Side Of The Generic-Drug Boom” – re-emphasized the book, released in May 2019.  This confirms, the raging debate on the questionable quality of many generic drugs manufactured in India and involving several top domestic pharma companies, is a never-ending one. Numerous articles also ascribe many different reasons to this saga, leaving an overall impression – as if, blindfolded persons are trying to describe an elephant, touching and feeling different parts of the animal’s body, each at a time.

Let me illustrate the point with the Bloomberg article of January 31, 2019. It reported, “Culture of ‘Bending Rules’ in India Challenges U.S. Drug Agency.” And further commented: ‘The FDA confronts creative improvisation in the world’s largest generic-drug exporter.’ Curiously, according to the above report it seems to be a general belief among many, even within India.

This article will take into account the above apprehension – specifically raised against Indian drug manufacturers of both branded and non-branded generics. Accordingly, my focus will be on just three points – as possible causative factors for this critical issue:

  • Is it an India specific concern – thus related to ‘Indian cultural mindset’? or it’s a global issue, involving both Indian multinational drug manufacturers.
  • Is it a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide?
  • Are generic drug makers resorting to such unacceptable shortcuts due to increasing margin pressure?

Having deliberated these points, I shall try to outline a set possible remedial measures to address this issue in a holistic way, ensuring a win-win outcome. Let me first explore, whether or not this issue is specific to India, involving Indian drug manufacturers.

Is the issue India specific?

Is the issue of questionable quality of generic drugs, irrespective of whether they carry a brand name or not restricted to the shores of India? One can find its answer in the same report, as quoted above. A yearlong investigation by Bloomberg News into the generic-drug industry concluded, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’

One possible reason for such perception could be, since India is predominantly a branded generic market, voices decrying ‘questionable’ safety and efficacy of cheaper non-branded generic drugs, are too loud. Nevertheless, amidst all this, who’s who of branded generic manufacturers continue getting caught on the wrong foot by overseas regulators in the quality quagmire. Ironically, multinationals are also included in it.

Multinationals are also included in such quality quagmire:

There are several examples of non-compliance to requisite drug quality standards by multinational drug companies. Let me illustrate the point with an example that involves a top global pharma player.

The March 04, 2019 ‘Warning Letter’ of US-FDA for the Irungattukottai (Tamil Nadu) plant of Pfizer in India, clearly said: “Your quality system does not adequately ensure the accuracy and integrity of data to support the safety, effectiveness, and quality of the drugs you manufacture.”

This is not a solitary example of Pfizer’s generic hospital injectables manufactured in this plant. According to a media report dated July 17, 2018, twice before US-FDA had cited manufacturing and testing issues in this facility, containing 11 observations of the regulator, such as, workers “manipulated test sample weights to obtain passing results” for both batches of raw materials and finished product. It is a different matter that the company, later on, decided to close this plant for commercial reasons. Be that as it may, negative perception of generic drug quality is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed without further delay, holistically.

Studies have captured negative perception of generic drugs:

That this is a perception, has been well – elucidated along with its implications, in several studies. A few of which are as below:

A BMJ article concluded: “A significant proportion of doctors, pharmacists and lay people hold negative perceptions of generic medicines. It is likely these attitudes present barriers to the wider use of generics.” It further added, “Negative perceptions of medicine quality along with other drivers contribute towards choosing more expensive medicines in the private sector.”

Endorsing this point, yet another BMJ article inferred: “Negative perceptions of generic medicines and preferential promotion of branded medicines over generics by pharmaceutical companies could influence prescriber behavior and affect trust in healthcare provided in public services. To succeed, access to medicine programs need to systematically invest in information on the quality of medicines and develop strategies to build trust in healthcare offered in government health services.”

Again, in a separate survey of over 2700 physicians on perceptions of generic drugs, more than 23 percent of respondents expressed negative perceptions about their efficacy and nearly 50 percent. reported negative perceptions of generic drug quality. In the same survey, patients also expressed concerns that the lower cost of generics is associated with reduced medication quality.

Although, the above survey was conducted in the United States, the current situation in India, I reckon, is no different, but with one caveat. Here, preferential promotion of branded generic medicines over cheaper non-branded equivalents, by the respective drug manufacturers, could significantly influence prescriber behavior. Therefore, the question that follows: Is this perception-creation based on facts?

Is the negative perception fact-based?

Although, even the US-FDA clearly states that: ‘A generic medicine works in the same way and provides the same clinical benefit as its brand-name version”, I did try to find some conclusive evidence depicting brand name drugs are superior to their cheaper generic equivalents. While doing literature searches, two types of results emerged – there are studies that do not find any significant difference between generic drugs and their branded equivalents. At the same time, a few other studies do suggest that there is a difference between these two, but admitting that these studies are not conclusive. Let me give below examples of each.

No quality difference found between generic drugs and the branded variants: 

I shall quote here three studies, out of which one is India specific. The analysis reported in the above BMJ article, found that ‘the generic and branded variants of the medicines tested were of comparable quality.’

Another study, published by PLOS Medicine on March 13, 2019 also said, “In this study of 8 drug products conducted using 2 large US commercial insurance databases, we observed that use of generics provided comparable clinical outcomes as the brand products.”

An India specific researchon the same also reported, most generic and branded drug users believed that their drugs were effective in controlling their ailments with no significant difference in reported adverse effects and drug adherence.

Slightly different results were also reported with generics, but not conclusive:

One such study questioned, whether generic drugs are truly equivalent to the brand-name versions.This article was published on January 2019 by Harvard Health Publishing with the title, “Do generic drugs compromise on quality?”

This article quoted a Canadian study, published in the October 2017 issue of ‘Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes’, which found that patients who took generic versions of three different blood pressure medications in the months after the generic drugs became available saw increased rates of drug-related side effects.

Was it due to a perception bias?

To ascertain whether or not there is a perception bias, let us look into the following details of the same study along with its conclusion.

In this study, the researchers ‘looked at the numbers of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for 136,177 individuals ages 66 and over (60% of them women) who used any of three blood pressure medications: losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand). The investigators examined data for the periods 24 months before and 12 months after the generic versions of these medications went on the market. And found that before the generic versions became available, about one in 10 people taking the blood pressure drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. In the month after each of the generics went into use, the rates of these adverse events went up: 8% for losartan, almost 12% for valsartan, and 14% for candesartan.’ The study authors commented, this might suggest performance differences between the brand-name and generic drugs.

However, analyzing this study, the Harvard article suggested further probe on the question: Did it result from quality problems with the generic versions of these medications or were there other factors that occurred in this time frame?

Another research, aimed at finding, whether patients are more adherent to generic statins than brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes, also concluded, “An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group.” This also wasn’t a conclusive one, either.

Nevertheless, the key point of a ‘perception bias’, is captured in a separate study, where the researchers did find higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization for patients taking generic and AG escitalopram and sertraline, compared with those who initiated the brand-name product. Importantly, they noted that these outcomes were likely due to either residual confounding or generic perception bias.

No quality difference also found between branded and non-branded generics in India:

There are studies, which captured no quality difference between branded generics and non-branded generics in the country. One such India specific study concluded: “Quality of branded-generics is same as for their branded version. The study highlights the need to modify the drug price policy, regulate the markups in the generic supply chain, conduct and widely publicize the quality testing of generics for awareness of all stakeholders.”

Thus, so far, we have seen in this article that concern on quality of generic drugs is neither India specific, nor is it related to ‘Indian cultural mindset.’ And this is, undoubtedly, a global issue, involving both Indian and multinational drug manufacturers. There are also ample evidences available that a systematic attempt is being made to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide. Let us now look at the third possible causative factor, as I listed above.

Is it due to margin pressure on generic drugs?

The answer to this question was deliberated in an article titled, ‘Generic drug makers feel pinch as prices crumble,’ published in the Financial Times on August 17, 2017. Quoting a top global financial analyst, it reported – global generic drug industry, where Indian manufacturers are major players,has maintained roughly 30 per cent operating margins over a long period of time, with improvements year on year. But, since last few years, there has been a margin degradation, which may possibly further go down – even lower than what it is today.

The article further highlighted, a round of consolidation among their main customers in the US: the wholesalers, have escalated the problem.  Many of these groups have clubbed together to form “mega buyers”, known as general purchasing organizations, that can command large discounts. Moreover, for the US market, another area of ‘concern’ is that the US-FDA has identified boosting competition in the generics market as one of its main priorities. As this reform opens up, it could squeeze the generic drug margins further.

Many envisage that intense cost cutting measures, could have transgressed in the drug quality assurance area, aggravating this issue. Although, it needs to be verified through credible studies, curiously, some signs of improvement in this area has recently been reported.

That said, there appears to be a strange coincidence between recent reports on Indian drug makers showing improvement in USFDA inspection outcomes and attempts to increase generic drug companies and some of their top executives slapped with price-fixing lawsuits in the U.S.This needs to be studied further.

The way forward:

The negative perception of generic drugs, in general, and non-branded generic drugs, in particular, is most likely a well-crafted business issue, rather than a genuine patient safety concern. It calls for an immediate two-pronged approach:

  • Vigorous awareness and educational campaigns on safety and efficacy of generic drugs targeted to patients, medical and paramedical professionals.
  • New regulatory measures, especially the following five:

- No pricing pressure or price control in any form of generic drugs

- Abolish brand names for generic drugs

- Make generic prescription compulsory to boost intense competition and thereby     reducing the price.

- Restrict the number of ingredients in FDC not more than two or three

- Make Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP) mandatory.

Conclusion:

Thus, the questionable quality of generic drugs is not an India specific concern and involves both Indian multinational drug manufacturers. This is also evident from the analysis, as quoted above, that underscores, ‘FDA inspections at factories from West Virginia to China have found reason to doubt the data meant to prove drugs are safe and effective.’ Many studies have revealed that there is a systematic attempt to create a perception bias against low-cost generic drugs, worldwide.

A sequence of remedial measures, as described above, also include fostering competition, instead of introducing government controls on prices of generic drugs with stringent regulatory oversight being in place.

Thus, the so called ‘belief’ that the ‘culture of bending Rules’ is culpable for dubious generic drug quality in India, is more akin to a strong perception, prevailing in India, rather than based on any scientific analysis related to this issue. This ought to change with a well-coordinated intervention – for patients’ health interest sake.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

‘Unbossing’ Pharma Culture For Millennials – A Sine Qua Non For Future Growth

Posted on by
Reply

Wishing All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2019

‘Unbossing’ an organizational culture is an interesting idea – more in the context of promoter driven Indian drug companies of all sizes and scale. The word – ‘unboss’ is associated with nonhierarchical and open leadership culture, aiming to achieve value-based higher goals, across the organization.Not many pharma companies are attempting to imbibe this culture, just yet, barring a very few.

‘The organizational culture is something that comes with the job’ – has been the general perception of all working for the company, including most CEOs, since long. Pharma industry being a more tradition bound, and hierarchic, such acceptance is more visible in drug companies. However, some industry majors have started challenging this status quo by asking: ‘Has our organizational culture, over a period of time, become too hierarchical and somewhat archaic? Are we still clinging on to the dated, and somewhat fossilized views and practices of the great predecessors, which were quite relevant in those days, but no longer now?’

In today’s changing scenario, the corporate culture of a pharma company should be able to unleash the full potential of its employees, who are an increasing number of vastly talented millennials, with generational differences in behavioral pattern.  They come with different values, mindset, expectations, aspirations, and feel comfortable working in a an ‘unbossy’ culture.

In this article, I shall explore how in the new millennium some pharma CEOs are going beyond mere tweaking, to usher in a substantive change in the sensitive area of organizational culture, keeping pace with time. This seemingly rare breed of head honchos clearly recognizes that developing a positive corporate or brand image, starts with the development of an enabling corporate culture.

Let me now start linking the organizational culture and business practices with brand or corporate image, through stakeholder loyalty, to corporate business excellence – all in the pharma context.

Intended corporate image starts from practices within the company: 

Instead of being always combative to prove how unreasonable are the stakeholder demands emanating from the complex business environment, drug companies need to accept some hard facts, and act accordingly. One such fact is – a positive corporate image or reputation based on an enabling corporate culture that is aligned with organization’s identity and good business practices, help earn stakeholder loyalty and enhance business performance.

This concept has passed the acid test in several research studies, over a period of time, e.g. the research paper on ‘Corporate Identity and Corporate Performance’, published in Scandinavian Journal of Business Research (Beta), (ISSN 1504-3134. Its findings may be summarized as: It is important for managers to understand that while building a strong reputation, the intended image projected by the company, needs to be consistent with the actual identity perceived inside the company, especially by the important internal stakeholder – the employees.

This is because, a positive corporate image reflects the way customers perceive a company’s product and service offerings to them and vice versa. This is not a recent phenomenon. It has been happening over decades. But only a few companies have taken it seriously to bring necessary changes within the organization, by remolding the organizational culture in sync with time. This point was also vindicated by the August 1998 article on ‘The Effect of Corporate Image in the Formation of Customer Loyalty’, published in the Journal of Service Research.

The findings of the above study from the goods and service sector are based on theory of consumer behavior, cognitive psychology, and social cognitive psychology. It clearly articulates that corporate image has a significant, but the indirect impact on customer loyalty. The authors claimed that customer loyalty is also driven by positive corporate image.

A positive corporate image originates from an enabling corporate culture:

That developing a positive corporate image or reputation starts with the development of an enabling corporate culture, is also corroborated by the above article featured in the Journal of Service Research. It highlights that a favorable corporate image is formed through a process of continuous updating without any behavioral time-lag within the organization.

Like many other industries, this holds good in the pharma sector, as well, to excel in business. Itis fundamental to ensure that the concerned pharma company always enjoys the confidence and loyalty of its internal customers – such as employees, along with the external customers that include employees, doctors, patients, Governments and the general public, among others.

This is equally important to make sure that the overall organizational culture does not get fossilized, at any period of time. It should always remain in conformance with the changing needs of time – new aspirations of the employees to unleash their full potential, for the best possible business outcomes through customer delight.

Some early indicators of an image problem:

In the pharma industry, some of the early signs of a company’s brand or corporate image problems get manifested by its indirect impact on customer/stakeholder or employee loyalty. The symptoms may encompass a whole gamut of areas, ranging from high employee turnover, through difficulty in getting brand prescription support from doctors and hospitals, into deteriorating relationship with the government, culminating to declining company share value with business growth stagnating or going south.

Positive or negative culture originates from the C-suites:

Many may be well-aware that both a positive or a negative corporate culture originates from the C-suites – mostly starting from the CEO office, including his direct reports, percolating down to even the first line managers, across various functions. A CEO should obviously carry the can and be held accountable, unless such incidences are aberrations or restricted in some functional areas. The reason being, an adverse company reputation or image, usually develops when the concerned CEO’s primary focus is on short-term results – not investing enough time on developing a positive and enabling organizational culture.

As the famous Warren Buffett once said:“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” This is important for all consider, especially in pharma, and in today’s scenario.

In the Indian context, one recent example, could be the ruckus created, especially in the United States and Europe, on the dubious quality and pricing of generic drugs. A bit older example is – how once top ranked Indian pharma corporate Ranbaxy almost vanished in the thin air, over good manufacturing practices and drug quality standards.

What culture would the millennials want with pharma companies?

The December 10, 2018 report on the Best Company Culture for 2018 of Comparably - a workplace culture and compensation monitoring site, highlight some important parameters on what type of organizational culture the millennials appreciate and look for. To illustrate this point, let draw the following examples from the report:

  • Open and collaborative company culture, where everyone is updated on the latest and greatest things happening to the company as a whole, across functions.
  • Autonomy with willingness to help, from all.
  • Everyone is trusted to do their job, no micromanaging.
  • Anyone can ask questions and provide input that will genuinely be heard.
  • Hanging out with each other.

These are just a few examples to get a flavor of the change. It is also quite likely that many senior pharma managers may say: ‘Oh! We are already doing these and much more.’ It’s a different matter, though, that millennials of the same company may not be on the same page with these managers.

Unbossing pharma culture – the ball has started rolling:

At the Forbes Healthcare Summit 2018, held in New York City from November 28 -29, 2018, the global CEO of Novartis - Vas Narasimhan, called for a cultural shift to cater to the millennial generation’s needs, expectations and aspirations at the work place. He said: “The goal we set out to do is create an ‘unboss’ culture.” Half of Novartis current 120,000 employee strength being millennials. This move is directed to enhance the company’s appeal to them. A part of ‘unbossing’ the company culture in Novartis would be relaxing the current rules, by allowing employees to wear jeans to work.

Expanding the point while talking to Business Insider, Vas Narasimhan said: “For many people, they love the idea of the culture change, everybody then wants to know why can’t it happen right away. So, then you have to explain to people, this takes time, leadership, it takes a lot of changes in how we work. But I think there’s been a lot of acceptance of the culture change, but now the hard work has begun.” 

Some key traits of ‘unboss’ culture:

The article titled, ‘5 signs that you might be an ‘unboss,’ appeared in YOURSTORY on April 08, 2017 explains: The word ‘Boss’ originates from the Dutch word ‘Baas’, meaning ‘Master’. Where there is a master, there are slaves, and that’s not a good thing. More often than not, this word leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and rightly so. Thus, in a ‘unboss’ company culture, the topmost quality that the person in-charge, irrespective of organizational functions should possess, is being ‘unbossy’.

Some common leadership traits that define a ‘unboss’ culture, as I sense from the above article, are as follows:

  • Giving a great importance to sharing of knowledge.
  • Quickly identifying the ability in others and bring out the best in each team member.
  • Never feeling insecure and passing on credit where it’s due and not coveting praise that’s rightfully others.
  • Being flexible enough and possessing maturity to also do the legwork when required.
  • Treating everyone the same, without playing favorites, ever.
  • Creating an environment of learning and encouraging the team to experiment.
  • Setting benchmarks for each individual member to assess their own career growth.

In the pharma industry, not many leaders, I reckon, possess these qualities. Some drug companies, both local and global, may pontificate about practicing these qualities, but the majority of employees may not experience most of these in the real work situation.

Conclusion:

In most pharma companies, including India, much of the workforce, in addition to field staff, constitutes of millennials, which will continue to show an ascending trend. Thus, it is critical to align the company culture to attract and retain talents from the new generation A large number of companies still don’t consider this issue as a priority task for the corporation. The example set by the Novartis CEO, as quoted above is refreshing, in that sense.

Moreover, a number of research studies have established that organizational culture helps form the context within which corporate identity and corporate image are established. There can’t be a better time for a relook at the respective organizational culture, as the image of pharma industry has still not found its bottom.

A positive image, irrespective of whether it is a brand or a company, based on a robust organization culture, establishes a stout emotional connect with stakeholders. This is central for a long-term business success, and vice versa. It isn’t an easy task for any pharma player, especially for the promoter driven Indian companies of all sizes and scale, but not impossible, either.

Be that at it may, with the pharma business environment facing increasingly strong headwind, ‘unbossing’ pharma culture for millennials, I reckon, is sine qua non for long-term success – from the corporate perspective.

By: Tapan J. Ray    

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

‘Design Thinking’: Translating Struggles into Positive Outcomes in Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Problems of various nature will keep coming on business, as long as long as one remains in the business. It doesn’t spare anyone in the organization – from the very top to right up to the very bottom. All is susceptible to problems. Thus, underlying part of all jobs, is one’s ability to solve problems – decisively, as these keep coming.

At the corporate level, problems could be either self-created. For example, when each functional area operates in a silo, at times restricting overall corporate business growth. This may happen not only due to lack of operational synergy, but also for setting incompatible goals. Problems may even arise out of environmental hindrances, or for smarter competitive strategies. Both would adversely impact the company performance, including the possibility of damage to reputation, and at times, even survival of the business. At the individual level, problems at the work place, may affect one’s personal life, work life, career path, key performance areas or even income, among many others.

Looking at the positive aspect of it, as the saying goes, each problem comes as a hidden opportunity, which needs to be harvested. Importantly, in a work environment, the degree of career success of an individual is often associated with the person’s problem-solving ability – in innovative ways. Conversely, one pays a commensurate price for not being able to do so.

In any case, ‘problem solving’ skill is important for all, as much as it is in any business, irrespective of whether the environment around is digital or one involving with lesser of computer technology. This skill is highly necessary for business success. Therefore, the essence of garnering differential competitive edges in any business remains deeply embedded in the quality of problem-solving ability of its people, across various organization functions.

In a broader sense, any innovation – including drug innovation that falls at the high end of the pharmaceutical value chain, is also basically a problem-solving initiative. This encompasses even some of the serendipitous discoveries, such as Viagra for erectile dysfunction. In this article, I shall try to explore the wider applications of a robust process in problem solving – the application of ‘Design Thinking’ in pharma industry.

‘Design Thinking’:

The roots of ‘Design Thinking’ hail back to the mid-1950s with the introduction of the subject, Design Science, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), says US Collective in a paper titled, “What is Design Thinking and how can businesses benefit from it?”

According to MIT Sloan School of Management: “Design thinking is an innovative problem-solving process rooted in a set of skills.”This process has been successfully applied to developing new products and services. It begins with understanding the unmet needs of customers. And from that insight emerges a process for innovation, encompassing concept development, applied creativity, prototyping, and experimentation. With the application of ‘design thinking’ in business, the success rate for any innovation has been seen to improve substantially.

In its analysis, MIT Sloan found that design-driven companies such as Apple, Coca-Cola, IBM, Nike, Procter & Gamble, and Whirlpool have outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 10 years by an accumulated 211 percent in what’s called the Design Value Index—a portfolio of 16 publicly traded companies that integrate design thinking into corporate strategy. According to a 2016 report from the Design Management Institute, this marks the third consecutive year the index has shown an excess of 200% over the S&P 500.

‘Design Thinking’ in pharma:

As we have seen, ‘design thinking’ approach is a human-centric way of problem-solving, understanding the user needs. In the pharma space, it’s problem solving to address its stakeholders’, including patients’ needs and requirements related to health. Thus, for innovative drug marketing, as well, ‘design thinking’ could play a very useful role to make all organizational activities patient-centric – for greater all-round corporate success.

In this context, an article on ‘design thinking’, appeared in the Financial Times on October 12, 2017 reported: “Development of a drug can take around 15 years. But by using the design-thinking process, you could make clinical trials shorter by collecting more real-time data. The manufacturing process and design of packaging could be improved by a better understanding of how drugs are being used. And costs could be reduced, enabling the more expensive drugs to be made more available.”

Four steps of ‘Design Thinking’:

MIT Sloan outlined 4 simple steps in ‘design thinking’ process, which I am summarizing in pharma perspective, as follows:

1.Understand the problem – the source could be both internal or external:

As MIT Sloan professor Steve Eppinger said: “Most people don’t make much of an effort to explore the problem space before exploring the solution space.”

This often happens in pharma too. It’s not very uncommon that looking at just manifestations of problems, a company will look for a solution – quite akin to providing symptomatic relief in the treatment of a disease.

Eppinger further articulated, the mistake that problem solvers usually make ‘is to try and empathize, connecting the stated problem only to their own experiences.’ This falsely leads to the belief that problem solvers completely understand the situation. But the actual problem is always much broader, more nuanced, or quite different from what people originally assume, he underscored.

2. Workout possible solutions – involving those who matter 

3. Prototype these, test and further refine

4. Implement the best possible solution

Professor Eppinger further said, people at work can use ‘design thinking’ not only to design a new product or service, but anytime they’ve got a challenge – a problem to solve. Applying ‘design thinking’ techniques to business problems, pharma companies can offer greater value to customers, and stay relevant.

Pharma companies imbibing ‘design thinking’:

There are examples that some pharma companies are seriously nurturing the concept of ‘design thinking.’ One such an instance was captured in an interview, published in pharmaphorum on May 3, 2018. During this interaction, the head of innovationof the global pharma major – UCB,articulated how his company is creating a culture based around ‘design thinking’, right across the organization.

Acknowledging that pharma is generally accused of being distant from patients that it intends to serve, he explained how UCB is aiming to address this issue byfostering a new patient-centric organizational culture through ‘Design thinking.’

Detailed analysis of the needs of the target audience following this process, and the use of insights thus gained, will also encourage researchers to create appropriate new products. The core idea is to create products that are led by the needs of customers – something that is so critical for pharma companies, particularly in increasingly competitive commercial landscape.  He advised people to be persistent and professional, as they measure and see the results, which has potential to create a snowball effect in the organization.

Conclusion:

Several studies indicate that the companies with a long track record of delivering stakeholder value, are more customer focused. Apparently, pharma players are progressively experiencing that for sustainable business excellence, their customers – including patients, should form the nucleus of corporate business strategy. The same concept should, thereafter, cascade down while developing the game plan for each functional area. There doesn’t seem to be any other viable alternative for the same, right now.

With upswing volatility in the business environment, ‘design thinking’ merits to become a relentless process, particularly for creating assertive employee-mindset to accept the challenge of perpetual change, anytime. Accordingly, a well-structured and equally well-integrated, ongoing feedback data generation mechanism, together with sophisticated analytical tools, supported by other requisite resources, should be put in place.

Ample evidences demonstrate that ‘design thinking’ helps business to stay always in sync with the market, customers and also its employees, for performance excellence. It can provide creative inputs for developing game changing business strategies, meeting customers’ new expectations, or even to reformulate those, which are yielding declining or sub-par outputs. Consequently, it becomes incumbent upon top decision makers to integrate this process into the pharma organizational culture.

Thus, I believe, ‘design thinking’ is an effective way of creative problem solving in a number of situations, having its source both within and outside the organization. It carries a promise of improved all-round corporate achievement – often translatiaing struggles into positive outcomes in the pharma business.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

‘Diversity And Inclusion’: A Missing Link For Indian Pharma

Posted on by
Reply

Inadequate access to affordable health care to a vast majority of the population has been a favorite topic of debate, since long, globally. This discourse is generally centered around the least developed and the developing world, such as India. However, in the recent time, the reverberations of the same can be heard even from the most developed countries, like the United States.

Possible solutions in this area generally encompass several tangible issues, e.g. high cost of drugs and care, alleged unethical practices of the providers, infrastructure bottlenecks – to name a few. Curiously, despite the availability of an increasing number of innovative drugs, state of the art facilities and diagnostics, brilliant healthcare professionals and so on, disparities in the degree of access to all these, between different members of the civil society, keep steadily mounting.

This cascading socioeconomic issue, creating a widening the trust deficit, especially on pharma, throws a critical management challenge for long term sustainability of business, if not survival too.

Transformation to a customer-oriented, profit-making organization:

Building a profit-making organization is not an easy task. However, transforming a profit-making organization to a profit making through customer-centric policies, is several times more challenging. That’s because, making a true external customer-centric organization gets kick started from a significant cultural change within the organization. Systematically creating a pool of requisite internal customers (employees), with diverse background, experience, gender, belief, perspective, talent and, more importantly, ably supported by the organizational vision of inclusion, forms the nerve center of this transformative process. No doubt, why the quality of ‘Diversity and Inclusion (DI)’ culture of an organization is assuming the importance of a differential success factor in business excellence.

The August 25, 2016 E&Y article, titled “Embracing customer experience in the pharmaceutical industry” epitomizes its relevance by articulating: “It is the companies that focus on continuously delivering a better customer experience to build a trusted and transparent relationship over time that will win in the market. They will not only acquire customers that will remain loyal, but also win advocates that will refer the company or brand to more customers.”

The missing link:

It is now being widely established that creating a culture of ‘Diversity and Inclusion (DI)’ across the organization, is of critical importance to maintain sustainable business excellence, with a win-win outcome. Going a step forward, I reckon, although, this is an arduous task for any organization, but an essential one – even for long-term survival of a business. However, today, the very concept of DI is apparently a ‘missing link’ in the chain of sustainable organizational-building initiatives, particularly for most Indian pharma companies.

The role of DI in making a customer-centric business:

Health care customers, like many others, are generally of diverse backgrounds, financial status, ethnicity, gender, health care needs, expectations, and also in their overall perspective. Thus, to make a customer-centric organization for greater market success, and drive product and service innovation accordingly, pharma companies need to deeply understand them, empathetically. A competent pool of well-selected employees with diverse backgrounds, race, ethnicity, gender, perspectives, could facilitate this process, more effectively. However, the company should also create an environment and culture of inclusion for all to listen to each other’s well-reasoned views – expressed uninhibited and fearlessly for this purpose.

In making this process more effective to add a huge tangible and intangible worth to the business, pharma players need to untether the employee potential through empowerment, making them feel valued and grow. This would also help immensely in charting newer pathways of all-round success in many other high-voltage complexities of pharma business.

‘Why diversity matters’?

That diversity within an organization matters in several ways, has been established in several studies. For example, the February 2015 article, titled “Why diversity matters”, of McKinsey & Company says, “More diverse companies are better able to win top talent, and improve their customer orientation, employee satisfaction, and decision making, leading to a virtuous cycle of increasing returns.” The analysis found a statistically significant relationship between a more diverse leadership team and better financial performance (measured as average EBIT 2010–2013).

Why is inclusion so important?

In a large number of organizations that include Indian pharma, senior management staffs generally seem to appreciate hearing more of what they want to hear. This culture quickly percolates top-down – encompassing the entire company, probably with a few exceptions. Personal ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ of various nature and degree spread wings within many organizations. Such a situation is created from intrinsic apathy to patiently listen to and accept another employee’s viewpoint – even on critical customer-centric issues. Employees, in that process, also get branded as ‘argumentative’ and often ‘disloyal’, if not a ‘socialist’. The major decisions often get biased accordingly – sometimes unknowingly.

Whereas, inclusion entails empowerment and close involvement of a diverse pool of employees with dignity, by recognizing their intrinsic worth and value. Moving towards a culture of inclusion would require creation of an organizational desire to communicate professionally and learn how to listen to each other’s well-thought-through arguments with interest.

The business should accept that it is not really important in getting along with everybody on all issues – every time. Neither, does it make sense for professionals to develop personal ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ on other fellow colleagues, based on issue-based differences, while finding out ways and means to improve organizational performance, image or reputation. Inclusion helps employees to learn to work closely, despite personal differences on all important issues.

Has Global pharma industry started imbibing DI?

Yes, many global pharma majors, such as, GSK, Novartis and Merck and several others, have started practicing DI as a way of organizational life and culture. Some of them like GSK India has put it on its country website. But, generally in India, the scenario is not quite similar. Though, many head honchos in the country talk about DI, the February 16, 2017 edition of Bloomberg/Quint carried a headline “Most Indian Companies Do Not Value Diversity At Board-Level Hirings,” quoting Oxfam India.

A voluntary survey of ‘company diversity’ conducted by US-based DiversityInc at Princeton, ranks the companies on four key areas of diversity management: talent pipeline, equitable talent development, CEO/leadership commitment, and supplier diversity. It revealed an interesting fact in its 2016 study. The survey reported, while diversity continues to improve in the overall perspective, its ‘Pharma 50’, as a group, ‘is right in the middle of the industry pack when benchmarked against the Fortune 500.’  The survey also brought to light significant differences in the levels of gender, national, and ethnic diversity even at the company boards and executive committees of individual companies. Nonetheless, some global pharma entities are taking significant steps in this direction. But, these are still early days in many organizations.

Conclusion:

The E&Y article quoted above, also says that pharma “customers are becoming resistant to push sales and marketing, and are instead preferring to relate to the overall experience provided in their pull interactions with the company. The customer experience will be the next battleground for the pharmaceutical industry. The deployment of a customer experience capability is a transformational journey in often unchartered territories. The key to success is to start early and drive a process that is both rigorous and iterative, allowing the organization – and its customers – to learn along the way and always to be ready with the next best action in place.” DI, I reckon, plays a critical role in attaining this goal.

Pharma companies are also realizing that building a profit-making organization with blockbuster high-priced, high-profit making molecules, such as Sovaldi is possible, but this may not be sustainable. It isn’t an easy task either, not anymore. There lies the urgency of transforming a profit-making organization to a profit making through customer-centric business entity. This process, I repeat, is several times more challenging, but the business success is much more sustainable.

Organizational transformation of this nature is prompting the global pharma majors to use Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) while achieving their key financial and people goals. Both D (Diversity) and I (inclusion) work in tandem for taking any fairness-based organizational decisions, irrespective of whether it’s staff or customer decision.

DI has the potential to help an organization to create and chart new and more productive pathways almost in all functions within the company – right from R&D, communication, service delivery to market access. In all these initiatives, customer focus to occupy the center stage – for a win-win outcome – significantly reducing the degree of difficulty for access to affordable medicines. DI is not a panacea to mitigate this problem totally, but would help significantly, nonetheless – with the help of employees with diverse background but having fresh eyes. Many global pharma majors have initiated action in this direction. However, in Indian pharma business generally, DI still remains a missing link, as it is seen today.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.