1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
64DAD5BECC392058A852580D500733F78
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/db-best-practices-managing-advisory-board-meetings-structure-planning?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2035.172.195.49
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25DB




Products & Services Medical Affairs Medical Affairs Excellence

Best Practices in Managing Advisory Board Meetings: Structure and Planning

ID: 5451


Features:

5 Info Graphics

13 Data Graphics

100 Metrics

1 Narratives


Pages/Slides: 26


Published: 2017


Delivery Format: Online PDF Document


 

License Options:
close

Single User: Authorizes use by the person who places the order or for whom the order was placed.

Sitewide: Authorizes use of the report for a geographic site. All people at site can view the report for a year and copies can be printed.

Corporate: Authorizes use for the entire company for a year and copies can be printed. No limitations for usage inside the company.




Buy Now

 


  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • SPECIAL OFFER
Non-members: Click here to review a complimentary excerpt from "Best Practices in Managing Advisory Board Meetings: Structure and Planning"

STUDY OVERVIEW

Pharmaceutical companies have long used advisory boards to gain commercial and medical insights about products either in development or already on the market. However, new Sunshine Act reporting requirements have forced the pharma industry to alter how it manages advisory board meetings. To highlight current practices in managing advisory boards, consulting leader Best Practices, LLC conducted this study.

The research explores issues around the structure and planning associated with advisory board management. In particular, this study examines what types of ad boards companies are using, what methods are used for developing annual ad board plans, who reviews annual ad board plans, and criteria for allowing internal staff to attend ad boards. Pharma leaders involved in managing advisory boards can use this study to compare their current ad board management practices with those at best-in-class companies.

KEY TOPICS

  • Study Overview
  • Key Findings & Trends
  • Structure for Advisory Boards
  • Planning for Advisory Boards

SAMPLE KEY METRICS


  • Total number of advisory board meetings your organization conducted during the past 12 months across all geographies and therapeutic areas
  • Percentage of advisory boards that are medical, commercial, health outcomes, access and other
  • Percentage of advisory boards that are done in one country and multi-country
  • Methods used when planning advisory boards
  • Main criteria for annual advisory board plan
  • Functions involved with creating annual advisory board plan
  • Does a governing body or specific advisory panel review annual plan to ensure strategy?
  • Do you conduct virtual advisory board meetings?
  • Percentage of advisory boards that are face to face versus virtual
  • Criteria for internal staff to attend an advisory board
  • Do you limit the number of staff who can attend an advisory board? If yes, what is the number?
  • Do you limit the number of external advisors who can attend an advisory board? If yes, what is the number?

SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS


  • Most Companies Conduct Virtual Ad Boards, but In-Person Meetings Remain Preferred Type: 83% of benchmark participants conduct virtual advisory boards, while 17% don’t. However, face-to-face visits are the preferred channel for conducting advisory board meetings, accounting for 79% of the types of advisory boards conducted.
  • Companies Limit Number of Staff Who Attend Advisory Board Meetings: 91% of the participants limit the internal staff who can attend advisory board meetings. Half of the companies set the limit based on number of interactions with opinion leaders, while 40% establish a set number for all meetings that are held. Most companies seek to keep staff attendance to half of that of external advisors.

METHODOLOGY


This study engaged 12 leaders with direct experience working in the planning of Advisory Boards, with participants representing 12 leading biopharmaceutical companies. About 70% of participants are at the level of director or above.


Industries Profiled:
Pharmaceutical; Biotech; Chemical; Health Care; Biopharmaceutical; Clinical Research; Laboratories


Companies Profiled:
Daiichi Sankyo; Gilead Sciences; Boehringer Ingelheim; Genentech; UCB Pharma; Sanofi; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd; Pfizer; Shire; ViiV Healthcare

If you purchase Best Practice Database document(s), you will have 30 days from the date of purchase to apply some or all of the cost of the document(s) toward the cost of a Full Access Individual, Pharma, Group or University Membership. Write us at DatabaseTeam@bestpracticesllc.com or call David Guinn at 919-767-9179 if you have any questions.