Exploring an Innovative CRO Business Model: An Interview
Susan Ollier HonFICR CSci & Paul Thompson
Interviewed by Andrew Smith
Keywords
Business, CRO, Culture, Flexibility, Franchise, Innovation, Merger
Paul Thompson is Director of Business Development and Susan Ollier HonFICR CSci is Director of UK Operations at QED Clinical Services. Many readers of CRfocus will know Susan better as Chair of ICR until she reached the end of her term at this year’s AGM, but she also ran a consultancy, called QED Partnership, which merged with QED Clinical Services just a few weeks ago. I’m grateful to them both for making time in their busy schedules, particularly in the period of integrating their businesses, to talk to us in their head office in Milton Keynes.
To set the ball rolling, could you tell me a little about the activities and challenges that you face on a day-to-day basis?
PT: I think the bottom line is that because we’re a dynamic and agile CRO, we all have diverse roles and responsibilities. Having quite a lean, flat structure, it’s very much a case of the lines of responsibility spanning many different activities. So, while we might have our primary roles, we also have to be flexible enough to work across different areas. In terms of challenges, I think we’re really no different from other companies in this sector: predominantly being a people-focused industry, hiring and retaining good people is key. The advantage we have in terms of our business model and our flat structureis thatmany of our team members have direct input into our strategy and direction, which in turn helps with motivation and ultimately retention.
Sue, how does it feel to be a Chair Emeritus of ICR? Did your slightly less pressured schedule drive you to look for new challenges, such as this merger?
SO: I enjoyed my time as Chair of ICR enormously, and I almost feel I’ve lost something having reached the end of my term. I learned so much, too, and it was a very exciting time. I don’t think it would be fair, though, to say that the less pressured schedule led me to look for new challenges. The coming together of the two QEDs is actually the result of working together over the past 7 years, so it’s been a maturing situation and the time was right to take a new step and build on that. Certainly, the role as ICR Chair took up about 20% of my time, so I do have more time now, so maybe it’s a good thing that the merger came now and not earlier.
Regarding your recent merger, I’m
certainly less confused now that there’s only one CRO called QED here
in Milton Keynes, but what was the main driver behind the deal? How
will it impact the studies you were both working on?
PT: Its all about synergy. As Sue mentioned [in a segment of
the interview available on the CRfocus website], we’ve worked together
for a long time and there was a good fit between the organisations
already, so it made a lot of sense to take it to the next level. In
terms of the pairing, it’s very complementary, not just from an
operational perspective but also from a cultural one: many of the
values that are intrinsic to one QED are shared by the other. It has
also brought to the table new skills and experience, as well as new
clients and clients in different areas: Sue and the team at QED
Partnership have a very close relationship with the NHS, so we’re also
excited about the development of that relationship.
Paul, one of the most striking things
about QED is your franchise business model, which I think is unique in
the CRO world. How does it work, and why do you think no-one else is
trying to do it?
PT: Franchising as a concept is nothing new: it’s been around
since the 1800s, so it’s certainly a well-established model in
principle. However, we’re the world’s first franchise CRO so it’s never
been done before in this industry. In terms of drawing parallels with
the model in general, the concepts are very transferrable: it’s about
conformity, control and ensuring the work has the same level of quality
wherever it’s performed. So, of course, that lends itself to clinical
research, where you have global studies across multiple national
regulatory environments. It’s really about how you apply the benefits
of this model to the clinical research industry.
In terms of why no-one has done it before, it’s
difficult to protect a service concept: it’s not intellectual property
and there’s no way you can shield it. However, where you can
differentiate is how you implement it. The critical success factor of
the franchise model is the franchisees that you work with, and that
doesn’t happen overnight. You need time to build these up, and we’ve
been doing it since 2002. I think that this puts us a few steps ahead
of any other company that might decide to go down this route. It’s a
new model for this sector and in an industry that is perhaps a little
conservative, of course it takes time for new ideas to be adopted and
embraced, but we’re finding that the model is being well received.
It’s (comparatively) easy to write SOPs, but much harder to build a culture that underpins these processes. How important is it to have a fit of culture and personality when evaluating potential franchisees?
PT: This is another extremely important point. SOPs can be adapted and improved, whereas the culture is something you wouldn’t want to dictate. If there isn’t a cultural fit between two companies, then perhaps a different option should be explored. The chemistry between teams is crucial, as it would be if we were putting together a team for a bid defence meeting: often the team chemistry is rated by the sponsor as being one of the top reasons for their decision. That’s no different for us when we’re looking to recruit staff or working with franchisees. Of course, we’re talking about working with companies that are already established in their own right in their own local markets: they’ve obviously been doing something right to get to where they are and often the original founders are still in control. We also try to work with our franchisees on a partner level first before going into the franchise route, which enables us to test the cultural fit along with the operational side of things.
SO: I’d have to argue that actually it’s not that easy to write good SOPs. However, I’d endorse everything that Paul said, and one of the things we’re bringing to the new company is that both QEDs valued their staff, and we want to have continuity of staff and to offer that to our clients. To do this, we want to ensure that the culture is such that we have flexible staff who are good communicators, and don’t change jobs every few minutes. I know how annoying that can be, and our aim has always been to have staff that stay for a long time. We’re both going down the same route in that respect.
Despite being tipped to ride out the
current recession, or even flourish as a result, the sector has
suffered this year. How important will innovation be, both commercially
and operationally, in preparing for the expected return to growth?
PT: I think it’s critically important to offer a combination of
innovation and flexibility. Obviously, companies that are flexible have
the ability to adapt more quickly and to change, and hopefully as a
result be able to ride out the bad times. If you are perhaps a larger,
slower organisation then there is the risk that you’ll be hit harder
when circumstances such as those we’re experiencing at the moment
occur. Certainly, we found that as a result of the current economic
climate, we’ve become a more attractive solution; the franchise model
and its reduced overheads means that we’re able to pass along those
benefits in our rates.
SO: I think that also the flexibility has been demonstrated in
the past with arguably the previous ‘seismic’ change in the industry,
which was the implementation of the EU Clinical Trials Directive,
certainly for those of us based in Europe. Although it was in no way
similar to the recession, it also engendered a large amount of
uncertainty in the industry and that was when we looked to innovate,
and started providing research governance support to host
organisations, looking at training needs because of the changes in
requirements coming out the legislation. I think that that sort of
lateral thinking in a small organisation enables you to be nimble and
to ride these problems when they arise.
Finally, if you could change one thing
about the wider world of medicine, beyond the scope of your current
role, what would it be?
PT: From my perspective, for the foreseeable future there will
continue to be a gulf between the development and availability of drugs
in developed countries versus developing countries. I think that it
unfortunately comes down to a conflict between the economic and social
requirements of drug development. In developed countries, there is the
ability to pay for treatments and therefore they are focused on
diseases that are prevalent in those countries. Unfortunately, as a
result, diseases that are prevalent in the populations of developing
countries are perhaps neglected. Positively, there are steps being
taken to address that, with non-profit organisation and big pharma both
suggesting collaborative initiatives, but, unfortunately, there is no
easy solution.
SO: I often wonder if our focus on clinical research is too
narrow in the world of medicines, and perhaps we ought to look more
closely at medicines to prevent disease. Also, perhaps we could apply
all the knowledge we have in the development of medicines and medical
devices to the newer techniques and agents that are coming through. We
have quite a narrow focus, and the potential is there for us to do a
lot of good for a lot of people by slightly changing our perspective.
Susan Ollier HonFICR CSci is Director of UK Operations and Paul Thompson is Director of Business Development at QED Clinical Services. Andrew Smith is Editor of Clinical Research focus.
