Principle #2: Fulfil Both Partner Needs and Project Ambitions

May 26

“The pharma partners won’t want to discuss that together. We should have separate meetings with them. We might need to have multiple different biomarker efforts.”

We were trying to figure out how to interact with pharma in the second stage proposal preparation process for U-BIOPRED. Most of the academic partners had the misconception that pharma was very competitive and would not want to work together. This was a reasonable assumption. Most had worked with pharma on smaller and mostly single company collaborations, which are always accompanied by non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. It was highly unusual for so many pharma companies to work together on one project. The fact that it has become routine to have ten to fifteen pharma companies working together is due to the brilliance of the concept behind the Innovative Medicines Initiative. At the time, however, this was a new idea.

When we met with the pharma partners, the reality was much the opposite. Large companies had begun to collaborate on finding new therapeutic targets, and they planned to compete on how a target was addressed. They realized that there were more targets than they could work on, but knowing which ones to take forward and solving bottlenecks in drug development were aspects none of them could solve on their own. They valued the intent of the U-BIOPRED project to identify new ways of stratifying severe asthma and generating data that lead to clinical and mechanistic insights.

When a consortium project is built around a strong vision, it can feel like you are sacrificing your own individual needs for the sake of the more noble objectives of the consortium. In pretty much every consortium project I have been involved in, there are partners who become silent. When confronted, they tell me they are silent because they feel that the objectives of the consortium have shifted, or their own objectives have shifted, to the point that the consortium no longer fulfils their needs. They only remain in the project for the “sake of the collaboration.”

It would be easy to think, “Well, if someone wants to be a silent partner, so be it.” To some degree, if someone is so removed that they are ghosting everyone, they are probably too far removed to reverse their disenchantment. However, this sort of disenchantment occurs to a small degree in many partners.

One company continued to invest in the project even after the funding period had ended. They even contracted data scientists to work on the structure and quality of the dataset. Why did they do this? They did it to help accomplish the objectives of U-BIOPRED, but more importantly they did it because the dataset was valuable for their own internal decision making. Previously, they had made decisions on whether to pursue a particular treatment target, acquire a small biotech, and how to position their therapies on either published studies, limited datasets, or intuition. Even when they had data, it took weeks to months to analyze it enough to find answers to simple questions.

The U-BIOPRED dataset, which included a lot of molecular profiling, allowed them to make more data-driven decisions. The dataset in U-BIOPRED is housed in a structured database that allows users to search, select, and perform on-the-fly analyses. Instead of weeks to months, it only takes minutes to answer questions. While these on-the-fly analyses aren’t rigorous science that could be published or used in drug approval applications, they are orders of magnitude better for making internal strategic decisions.

Think of this as a win-win-win. Companies have data to make their drug development decision-making much more effective. Academic researchers have data upon which to publish. Most importantly, individuals suffering from a disease win because the process of going from a research finding to a new therapy is accelerated. The question is how do you get to that win-win-win?

Partner Needs Pyramids

Just like the steps for engaging stakeholders outlined in the last chapter, achieving a win-win-win begins with understanding your own foundational needs and those of your partners. Raymond Maslow developed the concept of a hierarchy of needs that underpins motivation[I].

There are two different types of motivation: motivation driven by deficiency and motivation driven by the desire to do fulfilling work. The basic premise of Maslow’s hierarchy is that you have to fulfil the foundational needs driven by deficiency before you can pursue the more fulfilling work of contributing to something meaningful, which Maslow called “self-actualization.”

In his book Great at Work[ii], Morten Hansen describes what he calls “disciplined collaboration” as a balance between under-collaboration and over-collaboration. With insufficient amounts of collaboration, you ignore the potential to make a transformational change, the self-actualization of Maslow. By collaborating too much, you risk ignoring your foundational needs. Either extreme degrades your ability to fulfill all levels of your needs pyramid.

For example, if you’re prone to under-collaboration, working in silos on projects that aren’t particularly meaningful diminishes your motivation because you have less self-actualization. If you are prone to over-collaboration, the pressures of unmet foundational needs will eventually seem too high, and you will have to abandon collaborations, leaving many people disappointed. The key is to have a balance. You need to be disciplined and clear about your individual needs and the overall goals.

You can map your own needs in a needs pyramid tailored to medical research. At the base of the researcher’s pyramid is funding, which is the equivalent of physiological needs. When you’re desperate for funding to keep your research going, it’s hard to think about making big difference in the field.

The next level of need is methods and technology. Good researchers are constantly developing and deploying new methods and technology, and the best researchers see them as a means of building new collaborations by combining several technologies to answer important questions.

Researcher needs Pyramid: A framework for defining your needs in a collaborative venture such as a consortium project as well as defining the roles where you can contribute.

The third level of need is data. More than ever, having access and being able to make sense of data is a crucial asset. Most research projects now begin by mining existing data. In this sense, data has replaced the observation step in the scientific method.

Above data is the need to publish. The idea that publications are the currency of research is cliché. In reality, methods and data operate more like currency because they can be traded or shared, but publications build your reputation, which contributes to the next level of need: prestige.

When you have enough funding, good methods at your disposal, and you have published a lot, the next step is to get recognized as a leader in your field. Finally, the top of the pyramid is making a paradigm shift. With a paradigm shift, you make a real difference. This could be discovering a new mechanism, a new therapy, or a new biomarker, or it could be driving alignment across a particular research or clinical community or gaining acceptance for new innovative approaches to clinical medicine such as eHealth.

Consortium projects and, in particular, highly interactive consortium projects have the potential to deliver on all levels of your researcher needs pyramid. The key is to be aware of your own needs pyramid before stepping into a consortium project.

Mapping Your Own Maslow Pyramid

While you may have a good idea of where you want to go with all the different levels of needs, it is always a good idea to clarify your thinking by writing it down. This is particularly important when you are considering engaging in or developing a consortium project.

Later, we will review a simple process for mapping your needs pyramid, but here are a few ways that a consortium project can help you achieve some of your foundational needs.

1. Building collaborations

Of course, you have to collaborate to complete a project. There is, however, no better way to build a relationship than by working on a difficult project together. Time and time again, people tell me that the funding their group received in a consortium project was not as substantial or important as getting to know researchers from various industries, other academic collaborators, and patient stakeholders. These relationships lead to multiple follow-on and spin-out projects.

2. Developing a technique

Most successful researchers continually look for access to the latest techniques and technology, but truly outstanding researchers continually develop new techniques and technology. Techniques and technology are the currency of research, and a consortium can be a great marketplace for that currency. However, funding from granting agencies is often meant to develop capacity. Some call topics are almost exclusively about building new techniques and models. When you consider what funding you will need for a consortium project, think carefully about what the next step would be to further develop the advanced techniques you are currently using in your research.

3. Leadership opportunities for junior investigators

In all consortium projects, there is more work to be done than people to do the work. Young investigators who volunteer end up leading a whole line of important work. I have seen a postdoc launch a rapidly ascending career as a data scientist in a pharmaceutical company simply because he stepped up and volunteered his thoughts on how a consortium could improve the way it managed knowledge. I have also seen a number of successful researchers struggle because no one else in their lab could stand in for them.

The top of Maslow’s pyramid, making a paradigm shift, is a way to self-actualize, and so is developing others to carry the torch after you. It can be hard for a young investigator to escape from your shadow, but when they work with people from different organizations, your shadow doesn’t follow them. As mentioned in Chapter Two, consortia are a great way to become a shaper of your field. When young investigators do the work that successful researchers don’t have the time to do, they get the benefit of their reputation without being passed over for their opinion.

The other thing that makes consortia so useful for developing shapers is that most consortium projects are trying to achieve difficult goals – goals that are not merely scientific but have to do with building standards, changing societal perceptions, and changing paradigms. All things that leaders are increasingly expected to do.

4. Publications

Obviously, you want publications. While they may not be the currency of research, they are like oxygen to a research career. One of the biggest challenges of working in a consortium is that you will get buried under a rubble pile of authors. For this reason, you should know what papers you want to publish early on in any consortium project.

Often, people respond to this suggestion by saying, “But we don’t know what papers we can publish until we have results.” While it is true that you might not know the details of forthcoming papers, you should have a sense of at least a few major papers that will be published based on the work that will be done. Plan the papers ahead of time, and identify who the lead and last authors will be. It is best to organize a publication database. If done ahead of time and done well, you will be able to determine if everyone in the project is going to get a major publication. If it doesn’t seem likely, you can adapt the plan to allow for it to happen. When everyone feels confident that they will be publishing the papers they need to publish, the resulting enthusiasm and investment in the project enables achievement of the seemingly impossible.

Clarifying What You Want to Get out of a Consortium Project

Below is a seven-step process you can use during the development of a consortium project, or as a review once the project is running. This exercise serves to clarify in your mind why you are in a consortium and helps you know how to communicate your own needs to others in the consortium.

Use the worksheet on the previous page along with the seven-step process to clarify your own researcher's needs pyramid. This template is intended for an academic researcher. You can get a downloadable version, as well as versions for other partner types, on our website: https://www.biosciconsulting.com/plan-your-consortium-strategy.

Use it for a specific consortium project or as a general worksheet without a specific project in mind.

Step 1: Fill in the paradigm shift (or transformational change) relevant to the consortium or project at hand.

This might seem like a simple step, but it requires you to do some thinking. The consortium or project at hand probably has a number of objectives or activities that could qualify as leading to a paradigm shift. Carefully consider what seems like the most important change the project will create. If the concepts behind the project aren’t yet fully formed, put down what paradigm shift you think the project should be achieving.

Step 2: Determine how the project can increase your or your group’s prestige.

Write down where you want to have a leadership role. As a simple rule of thumb, look at the areas of alignment between your needs/goals and the activities or tasks—these are the areas where you should be leading. Even with a limited number of work packages or deliverables, there will always be tasks, subtasks, working groups, or committees that need leadership of some sort. You can map the layers of the pyramid just before the pinnacle.

Step 3: What publications do you want to get out of the project?

No doubt, you want to get numerous high-impact publications out of the project, and you probably will. Write down three. Ideally, they should be the best and highest impact papers you can conceive of. You may feel a bit uncomfortable thinking about the future and making assumptions about what is possible. Remember, you’re not committing to these publications; you are merely conducting a visioning exercise. By referring to this vision, you will be prepared to move in the direction of your goals. If one of your papers provides a better understanding about a particular mechanistic pathway that has not yet been included in the design of the project, you will be better prepared to make your case for its inclusion.

Step 4: Decide what data you will need.

With your envisioned publications in mind, it should be clear what data you need. List out the types (mechanistic, clinical, real world etc.) and quantity of data you believe is needed.

Step 5: What techniques, methods, and assets will you use and how can they be further developed?

One of the advantages of working in a consortium project is the sharing of resources. With high throughput and the high-dimensional measurements in use today, a technique can often meet the needs of several partners. It’s important to consider assets such as a local cohort or a screening library of compounds you can bring to the project. For each technique, method, or asset, take some time to think about how it could be developed further.

Step 6: What is the funding you will need to accomplish everything above?

Estimating funding is not an easy thing to do when you don’t have financial details at hand. At this point, your goal is to have an estimate, so think about what amount would be ideal and what would be the bare minimum. Consider both personnel and physical costs.

Step 7: Put your pyramid to use

You can use this kind of mapping exercise in different ways. It can be personal, or it could be for your research group or your university. You could also have everyone in your research group write their own, so you can compare them. This exercise doesn’t have to be done only at the start of a project. As a practice exercise, you can review your consortium projects through the perspective of your needs pyramid. Don’t be concerned about how accurate it is. You’re not making a commitment. Rather, this is intended as a thinking exercise, and it can be the start of an iterative process that will help ensure a consortium project delivers on all your needs. You don’t have to share it with anyone. By doing this exercise, you will be better prepared for conversations about what your group will be doing in a project. You will also be better prepared to leverage a consortium project as a means of increasing your research productivity. No other approach to research matches a consortium project for delivering fully on all levels of your researcher needs pyramid.

Once you have produced a pyramid review it regularly. Regularly reviewing a vision keeps it in the forefront of you mind. You will then almost subconsciously identify opportunities to further that you otherwise would miss. A good practice is to review the pyramid for a particular consortium project before every meeting that relates to that project. You can also get a consortium journal where you can map out your pyramid and take notes for all your consortium meetings making it easy to maintain the practice of regularly reviewing your consortium researcher’s needs pyramid.

Helping others

Zig Ziglar, a salesman who became one of the most well-known motivational speakers in the world, often said, “You can’t get what you want in life until you help others get what they want.” This rule applies very much to working in consortia. What happens when individual needs and objectives conflict with consortia needs?

Don’t assume this never happens. In fact, it happens all the time. People have a natural tendency is to ignore conflicts, particularly those which seem unresolvable. However, personally, I like it when there are difficult conflicts or areas of tensions because I know that if we focus on them, a diverse group of stakeholders can have meaningful, creative dialogue that is more likely to produce an adaptation that strengthens the impact of what we’re doing.

In the next chapter, we will examine how exactly you can make this happen. I believe the meaningful, creative dialogue produced by diverse stakeholders is the very centerpiece of this book and key to getting the best results from consortia.

There is always more that you can do to optimize the performance of a collaborative venture both in terms of the overall
goals of the venture and in terms of your own individual needs. Let me know about some of the ways you would like to optimize the performance of collaborative ventures (consortia, networks, alliances, or distributed companies) in which you are engaged. email

[i] Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation. 1943. Psychological Review 50( (4) 370-96

[ii] Hansen MT. Great at work: the hidden habits of top performers. 2018. ASIN: B074ZKB2QT

Scott Wagers