Earlier in 2010, I was consulting as a Senior Project Manager, for Physicians Interactive. We signed a major program with a pharmaceutical client in the treatment of infectious diseases (disease state and pharma name deidentified). This program had three different drugs (or brands) that had their own individual mechanism of action (MOA). Each brand had its own brand manager (program manager) at the client side overseeing the numerous FDA approval process through the independent medical, legal, regulatory (MLR) board (think of it as the program steering committee), promotional activities, and adverse event reporting among other things.
The program that we signed was a major "integrated program" with the pharmaceutical company. Each brand had a focused short-form branded newsletter with an interstitial small-form video, sometimes with a key opinion leader speaking to a specific point, or an animated video on a specific indication that could expand the application of the drug for a targeted patient population. The interstitial video will automatically land in a landing page that had additional resources, such as reference materials and coupons available, applicable for that brand. This landing page had two additional things as well. One was a link to a longer form video content that discussed for 3-5 minutes more information such as the PKPD (Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic) processes, treatment considerations, patient population limitations, etc. The other was a link to the longer form video content related to the other two drugs.
So, in theory, this was great! But, in practice, we created a monolithic large program that couldn't be launched. It required all brand managers, medical science liaisons, legal and regulatory counsel, and each program's change control board members to come together and align on the combined overarching strategic goals to ensure that the benefits can be delivered to the physicians (customers) and eventually to the patients (end-users). We practiced waterfall rather than agility!
Launching this program was so difficult because one brand will request changing something on the landing page that required approval to another brand's approval process. Since each MLR team had their own planned steering committee meetings that was closed to anyone except that brand's governance team members, it became difficult for me to get everyone on the same page to align on the changes required. So, even though the newsletter was ready, we couldn't launch it because of the dependency on the interstitial video component. When both were ready, we couldn't launch either of them because the landing page was not approved for launch due to the dependency on another brand's outstanding changes to this landing page.
So, I escalated the dependencies as a risk with a diagram that diagrammatically depicted these risks. I positioned my points on how such an integrated approach fails to deliver value for the pharmaceutical company, the three brands, physicians, and patients besides our ability to launch the program continuously putting change orders for increased work! My request was two-fold:
- Goal: Reduce the Waiting Time. I asked to the three program boards to open the steering committee membership to me, the other three brand managers, and a medical liaison from each brand to ensure fair balance. This would mean that when one brand's MLR team made a change to anything that the other brand's MLR team needs to weigh in, time is not wasted in getting these points across and communicating this feedback back to them!
- Goal: Increase the Flow. I asked that we minimize the unnecessary dependency somewhat so that each subsection can be launched benefiting the customers. This would mean we would have one newsletter without the interstitial video and one with the interstitial video so that the newsletter can launch sooner, benefiting the clients. Similarly, come up with recruitment emails to the long form video so that those long form video content would launch. Furthermore, agree on the minimally acceptable text on the three brand's independent landing pages as a call to action to the long form video content! I call this approach "Let the birds fly" referring to each project component in the brand's program as a bird.
Voila! For the very first time, they allowed me to raise my observations in that meeting. They were all willing to amend the processes to ensure value is delivered. So, instead of complaining about the processes or the clients, I escalated the risks that are compromising their goals. I addressed the "What's in it for Them" on their own terms.
Fast forward another month, after we successfully launched, I received a communication from the pharma's copy approval team (CAT) informing me that they have met internally based on some of my recommendations to institute such changes as part of any multi-component programs to minimize risks increasing flow and reducing waiting time (Name deidentified, personal communication, July 19, 2011). Now, that means success has doubled! Agility should be practiced even when no one uses any of the Agile recommended steps!
I would say success was tripled because this change I proposed brought even the senior executives in my organization to work with me on how to structure the deals in sales not only to maximize deal size but also eliminate the structural dependencies in the agreements to optimize the program for incremental benefit delivery and recognize value faster!
Personally, I would like to say the success was quadrupled because I was even promoted to be the manager of the Program Management Office that I had formed.
As Gandhi said, "Be the agent of change that you would like to see in the world!" Thoughts?
