Pfizer was interested in the reasons for this gap, whether expectations about these relationships were realistic and whether the gap could be closed. What were the real opportunities for productive long-term relations? 
To find this out Pfizer developed a conceptual model for measuring precisely how much PCTs were prepared to commit to and what they were looking for in exchange. Pfizer then tested this model with 25 senior managers in PCTs who were either pharmaceutical advisers (the equivalent to the technical buyer) or chief executives.

The model looked at different ways that PCTs and pharmaceutical companies could work together and systematically mapped out different criteria and levels of commitment and cooperation required for both parties. It mapped eight different axes for PCTs, including product endorsement and disease management and a similar number for Pfizer, including promotional behaviour and investment spend.

Each criterion comprised 5 levels, each requiring a higher level of commitment. Pfizer defined the levels on each axis as widely as possible. Level 1 described things that were currently going on, whilst level 5 was a real stretch. For example, for information sharing, at level 1, PCTs could merely give pharmaceutical companies access to their publicly published plans.  At level 5, they could carry out joint planning, and, even involve the pharmaceutical company in setting their priorities and goals.

This exercise was in itself very useful, forcing Pfizer to really think through the different ways and levels at which it could cooperate with PCTs, and at what cost. It also prompted Pfizer to ask itself how far it was really prepared to go itself.  It used a decision-tree to test at each level whether the decision-maker would value the offering from the pharmaceutical company, and whether they would be prepared to commit the PCT to certain things in return.

If they weren’t prepared, for example, to work with a pharmaceutical company as a preferred partner in an agreed disease area, the survey asked them whether they were prepared to do this if they received an additional commitment from the pharmaceutical company.

This enabled Pfizer to comprehensibly map out what the PCTs were prepared to do and what they were not and to identify the barriers that prevented PCTs from going further.

This process gave Pfizer a very clear, quantifiable picture of what PCTs actually wanted, what PCTs were prepared to do in exchange, and to assess in the cold light of day what they were prepared to do and whether it was really worth while investing.

“This process gave Pfizer a very clear, quantifiable picture of what PCTs actually wanted.”

What were some of the specific findings of the research?

Most PCTs do believe that there is an opportunity for long term alignments that represent a win for the PCT, a win for the pharmaceutical company and a win for patients. They see the major benefits in cooperation for the PCT in being able to undertake projects that it would otherwise not be able to afford, or would be done more slowly. The research was able to pinpoint the things that PCTs felt were of the highest value.