1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
6700DEAC70570BE208525751A0055636A
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/winning-brand-team-management-best-practices-in-leadership-work-practices-structure-and-performance-management?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2054.210.61.41
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25BMR




Products & Services

Winning Brand Team Management: Best Practices in Leadership, Work Practices, Structure and Performance Management

ID: SM-177


Features:

11 Info Graphics

20 Data Graphics

83 Metrics

15 Narratives

20 Best Practices


Pages: 45


Published: Pre-2013


Delivery Format: Shipped


 

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

 

919-403-0251

  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • STUDY SNAPSHOT
  • KEY FINDINGS
  • VIEW TOC AND LIST OF EXHIBITS
The driving force behind revenue in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies is the product. Since the drugs being sold on the market are the most significant assets these companies own and operate, it is only logical that the way these products are managed should be assessed for risk and evaluated in terms of governance principles.

The
importance of brand management has led to the emergence of an increasingly sophisticated system to adequately coordinate, communicate and execute the critical activities that propagate brand growth. This system, largely operational and strategic at its core, is fraught with potential pitfalls when management and oversight procedures are not implemented and enforced.

From an operational standpoint, many companies have begun instituting rigorously policed brand identity integrity processes. At a strategic level, the creation of marketing processes to elevate the sophistication of the strategic process around branding is transpiring. Still, brands are not conventional assets, and there is no scientific method for measuring brand management: it is more often a complex and highly subjective endeavor that rests on the leadership and management skills of the people overseeing the projects.

Industries Profiled:
Health Care; Pharmaceutical; Diagnostic; Medical Device; Biotech; Chemical; Manufacturing; Consumer Products


Companies Profiled:
Abbott; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; Stiefel; Shire; Schwarz Pharmaceuticals; Roche; Purdue Pharma; Orchid; Novo Nordisk; Novartis; Merial; Johnson & Johnson; GlaxoSmithKline; Genentech; Eli Lilly; Cephalon; Inc.; Biogen Idec; Bayer Schering AG; Bayer; Amylin; Alcon Laboratories


Study Snapshot

This report identifies how pharmaceutical and biotech companies structure and manage their cross-functional brand teams to facilitate brand performance. The study examines how brand teams manage their stakeholder relationships and decision rights including:

• Staffing and functional representation for brand teams
• Brand team operations and responsibilities
• Meeting frequencies
• Reporting relationships
• Performance-based compensation and reviews
• Brand performance measures

This research was based on benchmark survey data and executive interviews of 33 participants from 26 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Interviews were conducted with 10 senior leaders from among the benchmark partners.

Key Findings

Among the findings that emerged from this research were the following:
  • Brand team structure follows a consistent pattern across most pharmaceutical companies, therapeutic areas and drugs.
  • Variations in size and composition of cross-functional teams are usually in response to company-specific conditions.
  • Greater meeting frequency is related to work requirements and the need for agility
  • Brand growth shows no correlation to performance-based compensation.
  • Despite variations in particular activities and decision rights across brands, most brand teams recognize a similar set of responsibilities, accountabilities and performance measures.
  • For many respondents, the success of brand teams is tied more closely to team issues than to brand issues.
Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
Research Approach
Participating Companies
Report Structure and Organization
Key Findings 7
Leadership and Decision-Making
Leadership
Decision-Making
Critical Work Practices & Team Behaviors
Critical Work Practices
Team Behaviors
Team Structure, Organization and Performance Management
Team Structure and Organization
Functional Representation
Product Age
Primary Care vs. Specialty Care
Co-Promotion
Managing Performance
4
4
5
5
6
7
10
10
17
22
22
26
31
31
34
37
38
40
43

    List of Figures

    TABLES AND FIGURES
    Figure 1.1: Participating Companies 5
    Table 1.2: Titles of Study Participants 6
    Figure 2.1: Brand Team Leaders - Function 9
    Figure 2.2: Brand Team Leaders Level 10
    Figure 2.3: Brand Team Leaders - Function 11
    Figure 2.4: Brand Team Reporting Head – Level 12
    Figure 2.5: Escalating or Resolving Conflict 14
    Figure 2.6: Decision Tools 17
    Figure 2.7: Brand Team Accountability and Responsibility 18
    Figure 2.8: Brand Team Accountability and Responsibility – Cont. 18
    Figure 2.9: Communicating Brand Team Decisions 19
    Figure 3.1: Brand Team Meeting Agendas 24
    Figure 3.2: Meeting Frequency – Core Team 25
    Figure 3.3: Team Charter – Template Elements 27
    Figure 3.4: Communicating Brand Team Decisions 28
    Figure 4.1: Functional Representation – Core or Extended 31
    Figure 4.2: Establish Service on Core or Extended Brand Team 33
    Figure 4.3: Functions Slotted More Often to Extended Team 34
    Figure 4.4: Additional Functions Involved on Brand Teams 35
    Figure 4.5: Brand Team Size Dependent Upon Product Age 36
    Figure 4.6: Brand Team Size Segmented by Primary/Specialty 37
    Figure 4.7: Core team Representation: Primary v. Specialty 37
    Figure 4.8 Extended Team Representation: Primary v. Specialty 38
    Figure 4.9: Brand Team Size Does Not Change for Co-Promotes 39
    Figure 4.10: Functions that are Commonly Shared Services 40
    Figure 4.11: Managing Performance Crucial to Brand Success 41
    Figure 4.12: Performance-Based Compensation and Brand Growth 42
    Figure 4.13: Brands’ Performance Metrics Help Chart Progress 42
    Figure 4.14: Incentives for Brand Performance 43
    Figure 4.15: Performance Evaluations 44