Benchmarking data for strategic alliance management and business development teams in biopharmaceutical companies

The fundamental problem with stand-alone strategic alliance partner surveys is that they lack a frame of reference: there is no comparative dataset. By enabling our clients to benchmark their feedback with other companies we provide that frame of reference.

Silico has spent years developing our proprietary analytical methodology to be simultaneously transparent, clear and actionable. Using our analytical framework we tailor the analysis for each client depending on their objectives, strengths and weaknesses. This page shows just a few examples of the form which that analysis for clients might take. The benchmarking data is taken from our database of 78,255 strategic alliance, artnering and collaboration-related ratings. The 'client' data is a randomised dataset drawn from the dataset intended to illustrate how a client's feedback would be compared to the rest of the relevant data.

Overall rating across all measures captured by the survey

This charts shows what a client's overall rating might look like compared to the Leaders, the Laggards and the dataset overall. The Leaders are the three most highly rated companies in the dataset. The Laggards are the three most poorly rated companies in the dataset.

Analysis aggregated by section

The survey template groups questions by key categories including the success of the collaboration, the cultural aspects of the collaboration and the operational aspects. The chart shows the ratings in the database aggregated for the Leaders, Laggards and overall for each section.

Correlation between the success of the collaboration and other factors

The table shows the factors in the database showing the highest correlation with the success of the collaboration. The number of surveys included in the correlation analysis is in parentheses. A correlation of 0.50 shows a moderate positive relationship between the two factors. By way of comparison the correlation between the success of the collaboration and the partner's perception of the trustworthiness of the other partner is 0.41 (n=233).

Factor Correlation
The company has fully delivered on all its commitments (635)0.58
The company has an effective problem-solving and 'can-do' culture (639)0.51
The company's senior leadership has shown its full commitment to the partnership since its initiation (607)0.50
The Joint Committee(s) provide(s) consistent guidance and support to the alliance teams (403)0.49
The company's staff always do everything they can to stick to agreed or indicated timetables or schedules (616)0.48
The company has managed the partnership and cultural differences between our organizations effectively (582)0.48
The company has maintained a consistent attitude and commitment to the partnership since the outset (636)0.47
The company views the partnership as a true collaboration rather than as a one-sided arrangement (479)0.47
The Joint Committee(s) is/are successful in resolving issues between the partners (401)0.47
The company engages in an open dialogue to address differences of opinion between the partners (401)0.47
Overall would you agree or disagree that the company's culture serves to enhance its partnerships and the likelihood of those partnerships delivering value to both parties? (616)0.46
Communication between the two teams is very effective on both a formal and an informal level (613)0.46
The company has a culture that places a value on flexibility and responsiveness to change (582)0.46
The decision-making process in the Joint Committee(s) works effectively (380)0.46
There is a high degree of strategic alignment between ourselves and the company (228)0.46
Decision making by the company is timely and effective (626)0.45
The company has been very flexible and open to changing the way that the partners work together when this was required (623)0.43
The company's team works to understand our culture and to bridge any cultural gaps between the organisations where those gaps may cause problems (426)0.43
The company's culture is open to new ideas and knowledge sharing (638)0.42
There is a high degree of compatibility between the company's culture and our culture (539)0.42
The company has shown a real understanding of the resources that our company can dedicate to the negotiation and management of the partnership (632)0.41
The company's team involved in the partnership is well-managed and stable (626)0.41
The company has a reputation for commitment to trust, reliability and an ethical approach to partners and stakeholders (233)0.41
The company's team escalates issues to the Joint Committee(s) only when necessary (401)0.40
The quality and expertise of the company's staff is consistently high (616)0.39
The responsibilities of each of the company's team are clearly explained (636)0.38
We are kept fully informed about structural or personnel changes within the company that may affect the partnership (591)0.37
Overall, the quality and expertise of the company's staff is high (505)0.36
The company's staff always manage communications with us professionally, returning calls and replying to emails within a reasonable time (644)0.35

Analysis aggregated by partner

The benchmarking analysis of strategic alliance partner feedback conducted by Silico for clients aggregates feedback overall by partner and for each question. This enables clients to identify and focus on poorly performing collaborations and to drilldown into specific issues in individual partnerships.

One of the mechanisms used by Silico Research to collect feedback from strategic alliance partners is to ask them what words come to mind when that think about the client. The most common keywords used by respondents to describe highly performing companies were (in order of frequency): conservative, professional, slow, creative, friendly, collaborative, innovative, integrity, honest and quality.

The success of the collaboration

Net percentage of respondents agreeing with the statement that the strategic alliance has been a success.

Difference between the Leaders and Laggards

The table shows the factors with the greatest difference between the Leaders and Laggards. The difference represents the difference between the net positive value of the aggregated feedback of the Leaders and Laggards.

Factor Difference
The company's senior leadership has shown its full commitment to the partnership since its initiation42%
The Joint Committee(s) is/are successful in resolving issues between the partners 42%
The company's staff always do everything they can to stick to agreed or indicated timetables or schedules41%
We are kept fully informed about structural or personnel changes within the company that may affect the partnership40%
The company's team escalates issues to the Joint Committee(s) only when necessary 39%
The company has maintained a consistent attitude and commitment to the partnership since the outset38%
The company engages in an open dialogue to address differences of opinion between the partners38%
The company has met most or all of its past obligations under the partnership in a timely and professional manner37%

Another collaboration

Net percentage of respondents agreeing with the statement that they would be likely to enter into another strategic alliance with the partner.

* Templates for other sectors are available on request.