Moving from Opportunistic Partnering to Strategic Partnering
When leadership and teams seek greater structure in the grey/whitespace of unchartered territory (internally and externally) of pioneering or emerging technologies – the trigger for this desired shift is to spearhead the transition from what is often described ‘reactive’, ‘exploratory’, or ‘opportunistic’ partnering to move toward a more systematic strategic direction.
Sometimes, the program is in its adolescence and only very recently started, while others find themselves in a sort of limbo longer than anticipated, nearing an ultimate ‘GO/NO-GO’ with a shortening runway.
At a high level, the ultimate objective for every life science organization, technology, and partnering effort is to achieve critical mass for the sake of 1.) optimizing their impact for patients and/or society at large, while 2.) ensuring returns for shareholders and investors – regardless of what the topic at hand is, whether a Pharmaceutical, Medical Device, Medtech, or AI/SaMD application.
When improving any operational system to pivot from A to desired B, I begin with David Byrne’s line, "How did we get here?" and examine possible root causes to assess an effective path forward.
While there are various contributing internal dynamics to such situations, there are three fundamental common denominators that stand out, in my experience:
Limited to No Precedent: Some version of ‘No one’s done this before’. Sometimes it’s the technology, other times it’s a new market segment for the organization and thus limited internal process. The page thus fills with opportunistic action items. Exploratory/Opportunistic partnering is sometimes value-add to flush out where and how the pioneering technology may potentially ‘fit in’ in the enterprise and/or the life science industry. Leadership ultimately grow hungry to refine business plans.
Flying and Building the Plane : New technologies/strategic initiatives and Business Development, often have limited to no dedicated staff, grappled with the conundrum of requiring leadership’s confidence in a franchise’s progress and status (de-risked profile), before allocating dedicated resources to build critical mass. Chicken or egg? Teams are faced with responsibility to drive efforts for a ‘new’ program in unfamiliar territory, at the same time as an ‘official’ project. With little time available for strategic planning, the emphasis naturally becomes firefighting/reactive, whilst momentum on building the plane becomes deprioritized in the face of limited bandwidth.
Disconnects in Language: Misalignment in full understanding between partners regarding their incentives, business cases and/or goals often hinder progress. For instance, generic messaging without perspective on their counterpart’s ‘hook’ to address, ‘Why should I care?’ discount needs of targets’ stage gates/governance or BD processes – potentially leading to the partnering opportunity being lost in the shuffle.
#1 and #2 limits horsepower and clear foresight to get traction from A to B, while #3 often limits engagement and proper navigation in aligning internal and external stakeholders.
An asset or strategic partnering opportunity can achieve completely different outcomes on the upside or downside, purely on how the opportunity is positioned to various stakeholders. Hence, we sometimes come across ‘ferarri’s without an engine’ securing large deals (though unsustainable) or undervalued assets/programs.
Prioritize and Align with Desired Enterprise Endgame
To address #1 and #2, identify strategically relevant categories to compartmentalize partnering activities with specific endgames that are tailored to your organization or program’s strategic goals – ie. build one brick at a time and agree on which bricks are most important.
As an example and starting point, (for sake of mnemonics) I established a framework I refer to as BIOM. A balanced (micro)biome is a key foundation for health, as it cascades to enable efficiencies elsewhere in body. Similarly, the following are key fundamental charters (aka, Critical Success Factors or KPIs) for any innovative life science start-up (or pioneering program within a multinational) in developing an ecosystem of partnerships that drive growth and sustainability (with non-exhaustive examples):
Credible Brand: credibility and thus trust is absolutely critical for any viable Life Science brand. Examples of supporting alliances include, but not limited to
Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs), individuals and institutions.
For start-ups with platform technologies, large multinational companies may boost credibility.
Alliances that allow you to cross the ‘finish line’ for a near term win/track record
Business Development consultants aid in navigating uncharted networks and crafting relevant/credible storyboards that stakeholders care about.
Innovate:
Licenses and Partnerships to access emerging technologies, such as synthetic Biology, AI/ML applications, etc.
Similarly, licenses and partnerships that advance your existing pipeline/portfolio.
Operationally Execute/Scale:
Contract Research Organizations (CROs),
Contract Development and Manufacturing Organizations (CDMOs),
Contract Sales Organizations (CSOs) can aid in operational execution and scaling
Multinational Co-development/Co-promotion alliance
Sustainability: Monetization of Assets/Resources/Financing
Out-licensing, co-development, and co-promotion partnerships
Contracting platform services, may contribute to sustainability.
Are ‘reactive’ deals in process heavily weighted in areas that matter most to your mission? Or Heavily weighted in areas that matter less.
Alliances may fall in one category or several. Ideally, prioritized alliances fall in all or several categories. With limited bandwidth/resources, who wouldn’t want to hit multiple birds with one stone, metaphorically. (Be kind to all birds!).
For example, transactions/alliances related to Pipeline/Portfolio assets (in-license, co-development, co-promotion) ideally bring added brand credibility, when aligned with your vision, supported by a KOL affiliation, and inspire your target segments (whether for cost/access or novel scientific solution). A co-development alliance for such a pipeline asset that brings value-add subject matter expertise not only potentially enhances brand credibility but also enables your organization’s ability to innovate (beyond going solo), aside from potentially de-risking the asset depending on the deal. If that same transaction involves a larger party and brings a sales force, labs, or other infrastructure, it then also potentially serves as a vehicle for your organization to operationally scale.
If your organization’s at a stage to optimize its runway, monetizing may be the primary driver in business development efforts. Ideally, you would seek transactions that preserve your brand’s credibility to set the stage to rebuild. If it’s a budding life science start-up, brand credibility is often the gateway to being able to drive true impact and monetize.
Ultimately, developing an alliance ecosystem is the foundation for an organization's growth and sustainability.
By leveraging this framework as a starting point to align partnering efforts against key endgames (and their relative importance), companies can begin to triage their current roster of ‘opportunistic’ business development activities and ‘organize the closet’ in beginning your team’s evolution from opportunistic partnering toward true strategic partnering for meaningful impact.
While the BIOM framework begins to address #1 and #2 (root causes related to bandwidth), by providing starting point guideposts and structure to prioritize and optimize the use of limited resources, navigation of relevant sector language and respective governance of target parties is key to engagement, negotiations, and closing a deployable transaction.
