Dynamic Market IntelligenceThought Leadership
Staying afloat, course correcting and preparing for future challenges
Successfully Navigating the Seas of Competitive Intelligence in Life Sciences
Dynamic Market IntelligenceThought Leadership
Staying afloat, course correcting and preparing for future challenges
Successfully Navigating the Seas of Competitive Intelligence in Life Sciences
As there is more information in biopharma available than ever before, it becomes increasingly harder to sift through that information and find actionable competitive intelligence.
How do we, as one of the industries most interested in competitive insights, process this amount of information coming at an ever-increasing pace? It is up to our competitive intelligence teams—in partnership with stakeholders throughout our companies—to triage, filter and interpret this information. To find out how companies are handling the volume and velocity of data and optimizing their approach to valuable competitive intelligence, Trinity Life Sciences’ Dynamic Market Intelligence team conducted a total of 21 hour-long qualitative interviews with 14 CI Leaders (those who have ownership of competitive intelligence) and seven CI Partners (those who are key stakeholders and the principal recipients of the intelligence).
As there is more information in biopharma available than ever before, it becomes increasingly harder to sift through that information and find actionable competitive intelligence.
How do we, as one of the industries most interested in competitive insights, process this amount of information coming at an ever-increasing pace? It is up to our competitive intelligence teams—in partnership with stakeholders throughout our companies—to triage, filter and interpret this information. To find out how companies are handling the volume and velocity of data and optimizing their approach to valuable competitive intelligence, Trinity Life Sciences’ Dynamic Market Intelligence team conducted a total of 21 hour-long qualitative interviews with 14 CI Leaders (those who have ownership of competitive intelligence) and seven CI Partners (those who are key stakeholders and the principal recipients of the intelligence).
CI Leaders and Partners: We’re in this together
CI Leaders see themselves moving continuously toward becoming full strategic partners—but in order to make that happen, they need a seat at the table to freely contribute to their organization’s strategic thinking. Otherwise, they are operating in a vacuum.
Both CI Leaders and Partners must understand the new demands on their roles, the obstacles they may face to adapting to volume and velocity of data, the increasing importance of competitive intelligence and evolving best practices—as you’ll see in the following sections.
CI Leaders and Partners: We’re in this together
CI Leaders see themselves moving continuously toward becoming full strategic partners—but in order to make that happen, they need a seat at the table to freely contribute to their organization’s strategic thinking. Otherwise, they are operating in a vacuum.
Both CI Leaders and Partners must understand the new demands on their roles, the obstacles they may face to adapting to volume and velocity of data, the increasing importance of competitive intelligence and evolving best practices—as you’ll see in the following sections.
A CI Leader interviewed by our Dynamic Market Intelligence team summed up her frustration: “…I think that my stakeholders have their own view of the competitive landscape and that they have pre-existing biases and perceptions of what they have which impacts their view.”
Rather than be seen as part of a siloed department whose work may or may not line up with the goals of stakeholders, CI Leaders strive to work more closely with their partners in the company. After all, CI Leaders own and/or lead the department that is providing intelligence to the biopharma organization. At a minimum, identifying Key Intelligence Topics (KITs) and Key Intelligence Questions (KIQs) should be a collaborative and iterative effort between CI Leaders and Partners. As CI Leaders gather, analyze and interpret intelligence on competitors and the competitive environment, they are enabled to help guide their company’s strategy and tactical decision making through stronger connections to the ultimate end use of the intelligence—shaping strategy.
A CI Leader interviewed by our Dynamic Market Intelligence team summed up her frustration: “…I think that my stakeholders have their own view of the competitive landscape and that they have pre-existing biases and perceptions of what they have which impacts their view.”
Rather than be seen as part of a siloed department whose work may or may not line up with the goals of stakeholders, CI Leaders strive to work more closely with their partners in the company. After all, CI Leaders own and/or lead the department that is providing intelligence to the biopharma organization. At a minimum, identifying Key Intelligence Topics (KITs) and Key Intelligence Questions (KIQs) should be a collaborative and iterative effort between CI Leaders and Partners. As CI Leaders gather, analyze and interpret intelligence on competitors and the competitive environment, they are enabled to help guide their company’s strategy and tactical decision making through stronger connections to the ultimate end use of the intelligence—shaping strategy.
More than 20 years ago, standard CI functions were established, mostly within large pharma. However, even as recently as 15 years ago, some emerging biopharma weren’t as fortunate to have a formal CI function within their walls. Because of the growth of Competitive Intelligence (and perceived expense), CI was often thought of as a marketing tool to gain an edge over the market rather than a function that could bring value to other areas of the business, including R&D, NPP, Medical Affairs, Analytics, Market Access and Sales. It’s a different world now, in which more biopharma recognize the importance of exploring the context of the market, as well as competitive insights. The 21 CI Leaders and Partners interviewed by our Dynamic Market Intelligence Team were in agreement that handling and distilling incoming data and providing key insights on a timely basis is critical, and can only be done effectively when CI Leaders work together with each functional area to understand their unique intelligence needs.
More than 20 years ago, standard CI functions were established, mostly within large pharma. However, even as recently as 15 years ago, some emerging biopharma weren’t as fortunate to have a formal CI function within their walls. Because of the growth of Competitive Intelligence (and perceived expense), CI was often thought of as a marketing tool to gain an edge over the market rather than a function that could bring value to other areas of the business, including R&D, NPP, Medical Affairs, Analytics, Market Access and Sales. It’s a different world now, in which more biopharma recognize the importance of exploring the context of the market, as well as competitive insights. The 21 CI Leaders and Partners interviewed by our Dynamic Market Intelligence Team were in agreement that handling and distilling incoming data and providing key insights on a timely basis is critical, and can only be done effectively when CI Leaders work together with each functional area to understand their unique intelligence needs.
As the key stakeholders and primary recipients of competitive intelligence, CI Partners include brand managers, senior leaders and executives in all functional areas. All are in dire need of dynamic market intelligence that informs tactical and long-term strategy. Said one Partner: “Everybody is in love with storytelling and it gets to be very romantic and people start to tell themselves stories as they develop business plans and CI can bring you back to earth.”
As the key stakeholders and primary recipients of competitive intelligence, CI Partners include brand managers, senior leaders and executives in all functional areas. All are in dire need of dynamic market intelligence that informs tactical and long-term strategy. Said one Partner: “Everybody is in love with storytelling and it gets to be very romantic and people start to tell themselves stories as they develop business plans and CI can bring you back to earth.”
Ensuring leaders are prepared as CI reaches a new level of importance
CI Leaders and Partners recognize that competitive intelligence is more important than ever.
Of the 21 CI Leaders and Partners interviewed for our recent DMI Landmark Study, 64% of Leaders and 75% of Partners agree that CI will be more important or much more important in the next three to five years, especially as the number of competitors and products in the market increases.
Think about the more than 400,000 studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, 200 times as many as there were in the year 2000. Our industry is built on information: Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy, data for regulatory submissions, manufacturing specifications, distribution logistics and on and on. It takes a well-coordinated competitive intelligence effort to manage that volume and draw out meaningful insights. Stakeholders need clear and unbiased information that is prioritized to understand the current environment and plan for the future.
Ensuring leaders are prepared as CI reaches a new level of importance
CI Leaders and Partners recognize that competitive intelligence is more important than ever.
Of the 21 CI Leaders and Partners interviewed for our recent DMI Landmark Study, 64% of Leaders and 75% of Partners agree that CI will be more important or much more important in the next three to five years, especially as the number of competitors and products in the market increases.
Think about the more than 400,000 studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov, 200 times as many as there were in the year 2000. Our industry is built on information: Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy, data for regulatory submissions, manufacturing specifications, distribution logistics and on and on. It takes a well-coordinated competitive intelligence effort to manage that volume and draw out meaningful insights. Stakeholders need clear and unbiased information that is prioritized to understand the current environment and plan for the future.
Challenges: Too much, too fast, too confusing
There is so much industry information coming so rapidly that we sometimes feel as if—rather than swimming smoothly across the sea of information—we are lost in a small boat, surrounded by sharks, stalled by fear and uncertainty.
In some cases it’s worse, such as when CI teams are under-resourced yet still responsible for monitoring markets and competitors almost continuously.
Challenges: Too much, too fast, too confusing
There is so much industry information coming so rapidly that we sometimes feel as if—rather than swimming smoothly across the sea of information—we are lost in a small boat, surrounded by sharks, stalled by fear and uncertainty.
In some cases it’s worse, such as when CI teams are under-resourced yet still responsible for monitoring markets and competitors almost continuously.
Common practice for a CI Leader includes triaging the volume and velocity of biopharma information, often with the help of vendors. But once they’ve wrangled that information into a digestible form, it can still be overwhelming—or worse, mediocre with no clear pattern. They must prioritize the data they have collected, and to do that they need a clear understanding of strategy from multiple stakeholders. One CI Leader expressed it this way: “Sometimes our colleagues don’t share what they need. Not just what but WHY? When your partners share why, it is easier to support them.”
Once information is collected and prioritized, CI Leaders must run point to interpret the “so what” and coordinate its distribution to avoid knowledge gaps or unsynchronized views of the competitive environment. Here’s a classic example of where that function can go awry: CI teams working at a global level may not be coordinating their work with their counterparts at a local level, and the two send conflicting information or significantly different estimates of impact.
Common practice for a CI Leader includes triaging the volume and velocity of biopharma information, often with the help of vendors. But once they’ve wrangled that information into a digestible form, it can still be overwhelming—or worse, mediocre with no clear pattern. They must prioritize the data they have collected, and to do that they need a clear understanding of strategy from multiple stakeholders. One CI Leader expressed it this way: “Sometimes our colleagues don’t share what they need. Not just what but WHY? When your partners share why, it is easier to support them.”
Once information is collected and prioritized, CI Leaders must run point to interpret the “so what” and coordinate its distribution to avoid knowledge gaps or unsynchronized views of the competitive environment. Here’s a classic example of where that function can go awry: CI teams working at a global level may not be coordinating their work with their counterparts at a local level, and the two send conflicting information or significantly different estimates of impact.
CI Partners are blunt about challenges in keeping abreast of the competitive environment, especially when it comes to speed of communication. They report being in monthly CI meetings where the information they’re hearing from the CI team has already been read and digested from daily news alerts. This gives Partners the impression that CI meetings simply “revisit old news” instead of fostering a proactive engagement. One partner sums it up this way: “I just think that with the speed of information it’s a challenge for them [CI] to get it first and for there to be a runway we can leverage – everything moves so fast now.”
Quite often, establishing or even optimizing the function of CI within an organization can be filled with trial-and-error approaches. It doesn’t help that the biopharma industry in general is more cautious and guarded due to consistently working with highly confidential information and therefore less likely to share best practices or even preferred data sources. But there are some applications of competitive intelligence that can overcome these obstacles, as you’ll see in the next section.
CI Partners are blunt about challenges in keeping abreast of the competitive environment, especially when it comes to speed of communication. They report being in monthly CI meetings where the information they’re hearing from the CI team has already been read and digested from daily news alerts. This gives Partners the impression that CI meetings simply “revisit old news” instead of fostering a proactive engagement. One partner sums it up this way: “I just think that with the speed of information it’s a challenge for them [CI] to get it first and for there to be a runway we can leverage – everything moves so fast now.”
Quite often, establishing or even optimizing the function of CI within an organization can be filled with trial-and-error approaches. It doesn’t help that the biopharma industry in general is more cautious and guarded due to consistently working with highly confidential information and therefore less likely to share best practices or even preferred data sources. But there are some applications of competitive intelligence that can overcome these obstacles, as you’ll see in the next section.
Best practices: The Start of Elevating CI
The first four times endurance swimmer Diana Nyad attempted to swim from Havana to Key West, she was overcome by strong currents, an asthma attack, jellyfish stings and storms. On her fifth attempt, she kept course by following a line dragged in the water by a support boat and wore a bodysuit and special mask to protect her from jellyfish. That preparation enabled her to make the journey in 53 hours, swimming in open waters. CI Leaders, while not in life‑threatening situations, often have challenges along their “swim” which require a similar level of preparation to navigate through a sea of information and work with Partners to guide strategy.
Best practices: The Start of Elevating CI
The first four times endurance swimmer Diana Nyad attempted to swim from Havana to Key West, she was overcome by strong currents, an asthma attack, jellyfish stings and storms. On her fifth attempt, she kept course by following a line dragged in the water by a support boat and wore a bodysuit and special mask to protect her from jellyfish. That preparation enabled her to make the journey in 53 hours, swimming in open waters. CI Leaders, while not in life‑threatening situations, often have challenges along their “swim” which require a similar level of preparation to navigate through a sea of information and work with Partners to guide strategy.
In order to provide the best intelligence to their Partners, CI Leaders frequently rely on vendors to track fast-moving therapeutic areas or perform tasks that internal teams cannot. (More on vendors in the next section.)
For their part, CI Partners need insights and implications, a regular cadence of deliverables and alerts and open communication with CI Leaders in order to use competitive intelligence effectively.
In order to provide the best intelligence to their Partners, CI Leaders frequently rely on vendors to track fast-moving therapeutic areas or perform tasks that internal teams cannot. (More on vendors in the next section.)
For their part, CI Partners need insights and implications, a regular cadence of deliverables and alerts and open communication with CI Leaders in order to use competitive intelligence effectively.
Vendor insights
The right vendor with the right expertise can help CI Leaders manage the overwhelming volume and velocity of information available. Even more important, they can help interpret that information and be the strategic partner needed to be most effective.
But the wrong vendor, or the wrong vendor relationship — in which information is not adequately curated, interpreted and shared — just muddies the waters and sidetracks CI efforts, potentially devaluing the CI function itself.
Study respondents communicated that sometimes vendors can be unprepared or underprepared, but other times, they may lack access to the CI team’s internal insights, hampering their ability to understand the company’s strategies and therefore limiting the utility of the work.
Ideally, vendors help CI teams sort through the chaos of volume and velocity, whether it’s aggregating asset indication information, tracking clinical trial data and FDA approvals or connecting with industry leaders. Vendors can provide real-time analysis of conferences, earnings calls and major events like data releases. The more a vendor can help integrate the myriad of sources available to CI functions, the better and more robust the results.
Vendor insights
The right vendor with the right expertise can help CI Leaders manage the overwhelming volume and velocity of information available. Even more important, they can help interpret that information and be the strategic partner needed to be most effective.
But the wrong vendor, or the wrong vendor relationship — in which information is not adequately curated, interpreted and shared — just muddies the waters and sidetracks CI efforts, potentially devaluing the CI function itself.
Study respondents communicated that sometimes vendors can be unprepared or underprepared, but other times, they may lack access to the CI team’s internal insights, hampering their ability to understand the company’s strategies and therefore limiting the utility of the work.
Ideally, vendors help CI teams sort through the chaos of volume and velocity, whether it’s aggregating asset indication information, tracking clinical trial data and FDA approvals or connecting with industry leaders. Vendors can provide real-time analysis of conferences, earnings calls and major events like data releases. The more a vendor can help integrate the myriad of sources available to CI functions, the better and more robust the results.
The future: Volume and velocity continue to escalate
If the past few years of collecting and interpreting competitive intelligence have felt like trying to swim across the Atlantic, the next decade could feel like trying to swim across the Atlantic pulling a container ship — unless we approach it the right way.
The ever-increasing volume and velocity means CI Partners will have higher expectations of CI Leaders,
who in turn will expect more from their vendors—who, for their part, want to position themselves as
strategic partners.
The future: Volume and velocity continue to escalate
If the past few years of collecting and interpreting competitive intelligence have felt like trying to swim across the Atlantic, the next decade could feel like trying to swim across the Atlantic pulling a container ship — unless we approach it the right way.
The ever-increasing volume and velocity means CI Partners will have higher expectations of CI Leaders,
who in turn will expect more from their vendors—who, for their part, want to position themselves as
strategic partners.
As the pace and volume of information grows, companies are recalibrating their
competitive intelligence strategy. They may be rethinking their organizational structures,
linking CI teams more tightly with Research and Development, Forecasting and Medical teams. Competitive intelligence could be informing early clinical development decisions such as indication prioritization. Consider your own company — how has the focus changed?
In order to keep up with increased innovation in the industry and new internal customers, CI teams will rely heavily on vendors who can gather information ethically, rapidly and thoroughly—and provide insights in a timely manner. Some vendors have already begun to incorporate artificial intelligence and machine learning (AIML) to some degree in their data collection process. Although the application of AIML in biopharma intelligence is still evolving, there are some good examples of positive outcomes when it is used correctly and judiciously.
As the pace and volume of information grows, companies are recalibrating their competitive intelligence strategy. They may be rethinking their organizational structures, linking CI teams more tightly with Research and Development, Forecasting and Medical teams. Competitive intelligence could be informing early clinical development decisions such as indication prioritization. Consider your own company — how has the focus changed?
In order to keep up with increased innovation in the industry and new internal customers, CI teams will rely heavily on vendors who can gather information ethically, rapidly and thoroughly—and provide insights in a timely manner. Some vendors have already begun to incorporate artificial intelligence and machine learning (AIML) to some degree in their data collection process. Although the application of AIML in biopharma intelligence is still evolving, there are some good examples of positive outcomes when it is used correctly and judiciously.
However, there is still skepticism about the use of AIML in biopharma. CI Leaders and
Partners report using AIML on a limited basis. There are automated services that can comb through information and allow users to organize or filter the results, but they do not provide implications from that information. While this is a limitation of AIML, it does not necessarily need eliminating its use—rather, there is a stronger need to demonstrate utility and value of AIML.
One CI leader put it this way: “I used AIML in other spaces but have not used it in CI world. I don’t even want to call it AIML—it’s web crawling. I would love it if it could take disparate data sets, see patterns and make connections to give you an alert. I try to do this on my own and it takes forever to do this.”
Some doubt that AIML can ever do what CI teams do, using judgment and drawing out insights:
“CI is more qualitative—more of an art than a science. It’s an old school discipline.”
However, there is still skepticism about the use of AIML in biopharma. CI Leaders and Partners report using AIML on a limited basis. There are automated services that can comb through information and allow users to organize or filter the results, but they do not provide implications from that information. While this is a limitation of AIML, it does not necessarily need eliminating its use—rather, there is a stronger need to demonstrate utility and value of AIML.
One CI leader put it this way: “I used AIML in other spaces but have not used it in CI world. I don’t even want to call it AIML—it’s web crawling. I would love it if it could take disparate data sets, see patterns and make connections to give you an alert. I try to do this on my own and it takes forever to do this.”
Some doubt that AIML can ever do what CI teams do, using judgment and drawing out insights:
“CI is more qualitative—more of an art than a science. It’s an old school discipline.”
An immediate game plan: Navigating the sea of information
We don’t have to swim without direction in a sea of information. We just have to approach that sea of information differently.
We have to re-assess the role of competitive intelligence and re-think how CI fits in across the company. This isn’t easy, and it requires open minds and real commitment on the part of CI Leaders and Partners.
As CI experts Benjamin Gilad and Magnes Hoppe write in Harvard Business Review, “The goal for strategic intelligence is not to collect market information to make plans, but to use that information to generate insights that in turn support ever changing perspectives. Eventually, these perspectives may result in action. Or not.”
An immediate game plan: Navigating the sea of information
We don’t have to swim without direction in a sea of information. We just have to approach that sea of information differently.
We have to re-assess the role of competitive intelligence and re-think how CI fits in across the company. This isn’t easy, and it requires open minds and real commitment on the part of CI Leaders and Partners.
As CI experts Benjamin Gilad and Magnes Hoppe write in Harvard Business Review, “The goal for strategic intelligence is not to collect market information to make plans, but to use that information to generate insights that in turn support ever changing perspectives. Eventually, these perspectives may result in action. Or not.”
It often feels as if we’re building the ship as we’re navigating our course, but there
are ways to sort out competitive intelligence even as we’re bombarded by information.
CI Leaders and Partners can start by asking their stakeholders about their assumptions when it comes to competitors, to get a real sense for areas of dissonance.
This has been more of a challenge over the past few years, with less face-to-face time and more remote work arrangements dictated by the COVID pandemic.
However, CI Leaders and Partners should be in the same room to think this through together: What are our Key Intelligence Topics and Key Intelligence Questions? From there, they can build a competitive intelligence system that provides perspective and insight for leaders across functional areas.
It often feels as if we’re building the ship as we’re navigating our course, but there
are ways to sort out competitive intelligence even as we’re bombarded by information.
CI Leaders and Partners can start by asking their stakeholders about their assumptions when it comes to competitors, to get a real sense for areas of dissonance.
This has been more of a challenge over the past few years, with less face-to-face time and more remote work arrangements dictated by the COVID pandemic.
However, CI Leaders and Partners should be in the same room to think this through together: What are our Key Intelligence Topics and Key Intelligence Questions? From there, they can build a competitive intelligence system that provides perspective and insight for leaders across functional areas.
About Trinity Dynamic Market Intelligence
Trinity Dynamic Market Intelligence uses next-generation analytics and strategies to offer life sciences leaders an integrated approach to making informed decisions in a complex competitive landscape. Our dynamic methodology ensures scalability and agility in response to change in the market—as well as the evolution of our clients’ needs.
Intelligence is not just about data mining and monitoring—it requires market knowledge and expertise to generate accurate and robust insights. The right mix of people, data sources and technology can guide actions to enhance team performance and increase confidence in decision-making.
Dynamic Market IntelligenceThought Leadership
Dynamic Market IntelligenceThought Leadership
About Trinity Dynamic Market Intelligence
Learn More
Michele Andrews
Principal &
Head of Dynamic Market Intelligence
Trinity Dynamic Market Intelligence
uses next-generation analytics and
strategies to offer life sciences leaders
an integrated approach to making informed decisions in a complex competitive landscape. Our dynamic methodology ensures scalability and agility in response to change in the market—as well as the evolution of our clients’ needs.
Intelligence is not just about data mining and monitoring—it requires market knowledge and expertise to generate accurate and robust insights. The right mix of people, data sources and technology can guide actions to enhance team performance and increase confidence in decision-making.