So what are PCTs prepared to offer in exchange?
PCTs are willing to use established mechanisms to encourage prescribers to follow guidelines that are in the interests of patients, PCT and the pharmaceutical company, but they are less willing to commit to switch programmes.

When asked about product endorsement, they are willing to commit to increasing levels of incentives and product specific messaging (levels A through D), but unwilling to commit to the highest level of endorsement, product switch programmes (level E).

However, there appears to be a lack of commercial awareness and understanding that, in order to justify the investment required for a formal long-term relationship, the pharmaceutical company must be able to demonstrate the commercial benefits that will accrue. Does this sound familiar? How many partner managers or retail buyers have you dealt with who would like all the benefits of a strategic relationship, as well as taking a big fat margin?

There is also a clear difference between the attitude of pharmaceutical advisers and chief executives, with CEOs being prepared to go an extra level on some axes, possibly because they had a more strategic view of cooperation.  However, they also sought more in return from pharmaceutical companies.

This mirrors what is generally found in partner organisations – the more senior the manager, the more likely he or she is to envisage and to want deep cooperation.

The research also demonstrated that PCTs were risk averse to making formal commitments to pharmaceutical companies.

They are concerned about the probity of exclusive relationships, the need for the selection of partners to be transparent and open, being tied into any long-term relationship and being overly associated with a partner’s brand. This situation has been intensified by recent bad press the pharmaceutical industry has suffered from, such as non-disclosure of information. For different reasons, partners in other sectors are often reluctant to align themselves to a particular supplier or to actively use their brand.

The Conditions for Successful Relationships
It is interesting to map these findings against a framework developed at Cranfield University by Professor Malcolm McDonald and colleagues. In their research on key account management, they identified a set of conditions for successful relationships:

• Both parties acknowledge their relative importance to each other
• Large number of multifunctional contacts
• High volume of dialogue
• High level of information exchange
• Mutual understanding
• Pro-active, rather than reactive
• Prepared to invest time and money in the relationship
• Wide range of joint and innovative activity
• Joint focus for the future

You can also map these findings to examine how far relationships between pharmaceutical companies and PCTs match these requirements (see table below).  Likewise, it can be used for any supplier/partner relationship.