Session Notes: Roundtable 1: Benefits Realization & ROI – Making Value a Pre-Commitment, Not an Epilogue

Apr 22, 2026
Benefits Realization ROI: Making Value a Pre- Commitment, Not an Epilogue - Transcript
00:00:00
 
 : It benefits. I'm gonna um so we're recording the session to to have meeting inside. So I'll just place my laptop here in the middle to record your yeah your discussions. So it's not gonna So just so it takes about three hours and it's quicker to take the train but you have to because it's so you have to actually go into London into Houston to then over to King's Cross to then come back out but I'd rather just drive no one for sure to Well, I used to do I used to live here in Basel. Oh, wow. And then I used to have to go to Welling every week for a day. It was just horrific. Like I try and I couldn't even combine it with a visit to family because then I'm not going all the way to Right. But now I actually come here one week a month and I don't have to go to W. Yeah. Yeah. Which is so it's easy to drive to Heathrow. You know what I mean?
 
 
00:01:42
 
 : Yeah. For sure. For sure. like London London season because I've taken that flight. Yeah. Yesterday we the moderator I think um I'm the moderator so I was giving time to see some people moving around but maybe we can get started. Um so this may be for for us today. So welcome to this round table discussion over there. Hello. Hi. SL it easy. Yeah, I know. And I was like from work. We are getting started. So welcome to our round table. Um we are going to be talking around ROI realization taking this beyond the planning phase. And I wanted to start by introducing myself a little bit. Uh so my name is Dia Castano. I'm associate director of uh project management in uh global medical excellence in medical affairs. And this is a little bit different to a lot of the PPM scope that we have been seeing today. But it shouldn't detract from the fact that we are all at the end of the day very much driven by performance in in all of the different aspects.
 
 
00:02:59
 
 : So really excited to see what the the participants here want to bring to the table. Um from my perspective um the use of ROI at the business case level is something that is quite well established and it's something that often drives decision at the business planning cycles in standard practices. So definitely I see that the planning stage is there from big farmer perspective in the portfolio type situations I'm managing it is difficult sometimes not because the execution is not delivering but because um realizing the mathematics and the algorithms behind some of this is not so clear as it was thought out initially because we are a little bit more focusing on innovation for medical affairs. some of the things need to be rescoped and continuing reporting on the ROI sometimes just doesn't stick and goalposts have shifted a little bit. So I wanted to share a little bit my own experience in this uh situation and and with this component and I wanted to just do a little bit of a quick show of hands uh between the people here and we will have time to introduce yourselves if you want when you speak first.
 
 
00:04:19
 
 : Um the first question is in your own case in your own experience is tracking ROI something that is done well or is there room for improvement? So if there is uh if you are effectively tracking in your context ROI if anyone would be so kind to show off your hands that would be fantastic um just to level it. So how do we feel about the tracking? How's it going? Can you give a definition of the ROI? how you measure actually or you define the ROI because there are many different ways. Yeah. To create a formula for ROI or many different terms that are very close to ROI. So maybe to give us your understanding. So I think the important welcome the important thing here is um goes a little bit beyond the standardized definition. At the end of the day return on investment is what is driving business value based on an investment that has been set out. So I'm not so much looking at what is the definition of that value.
 
 
00:05:18
 
 : It can be number of patients. It can be market share. It can be exclusivity. You you name it. So the definition of that business benefit um we can uh talk about that but I think may not be the common thread for for the group. So keen to hear if you have a definition that you would want to propose but this is not this is not what I was aiming for. So what what do you think? Yeah the classical ROI is that you look at the future cash flows. Yes. It's just financial and divided by the investments of the past. Yes. Right. And then you can make it discounted or not discounted. Yes. And the ROI is a technical term. So you get back 20 times the money you invested or 100 times the money you invested. Yes. The problem is that the ROI alone does not show if there are better opportunities to invest your money. Right.
 
 
00:06:12
 
 : You can have also the NPV what we heard earlier today net present value as such just not give you the margin for example. Yeah. There can be an NPV of 50 million but there can be two NPVS the same size 50 million each but for the one the margin MBTA might be much higher the risk might be lower the ROI might be different. Yes. So I think you need to compare a set of KPIs and when you track then over time the success against your plan you have fluctuations of your underlying assumptions like currencies like inflations like different developments you can foresee like in these days higher oil prices and so on right yes so I think it's a combination of two things you need first to define what you measure so what are your key performance indicators so like 20 or 30 but only like five to seven key performance indicators but then make them measurable in a way that over time you can track it and not only say we are above what we have planned but understand why you are above and is it coincidence is it um also a mistake in your planning stander if you made your assumptions or is it true success um that you can also repeat in the future.
 
 
00:07:32
 
 : Yeah. No, I think this is great. Thank you for helping frame the the discussion a little bit. So what I'm hearing is um if the definition substantially changes then our ability to say that we are tracking this well might change. So basically if we are defining um ROI or a key metric as something that's compound and maybe a little bit complex, we may have a harder time tracking it. And the second component is around the timeline. So if we define something that is a little bit of volatile like it's a you know maybe a trendy kind of approach to to this benefit maybe that's not going to be durable and then as time passes along we're not going to be able to track it because it has evolved and it's volatile basically. Um so having said that again kind of a little bit the same question for for the others and we can we can change if if this does not make sense but um do we feel generally that throughout the portfolio delivery there is a consistency in how this is tracked and is it really reflecting this goal tracks when it's marketed like even if reality actually reflects the workload.
 
 
00:08:48
 
 : Yeah. Yeah, exactly. How is it done? Is it, you know, do we feel that we end up having to turn tables, having to risk things? I we at Rush, we mainly base our investment decisions on NPV of course set of metrics and including offers reward balance and everything, but let's say much more on NPV than ROI. Um, partly also because I think the the cost data like no the investment is not factored in and we don't have actually data of the cost of how much we spend and each we have huge data gap finance yeah doesn't know yeah I feel like that's a GSK as well it's almost this unknown cost that's in there and you're like and this is this is an approach that happens frequently like you have the s costs and I'm just looking forward kind of roadblock number one. Secondly, I don't so at the portfolio level or at the enterprise level, of course, we measure against our targets and but at the individual project level, we don't do that feedback. We we know we're off under no we are too conservative or overenthusiastic about our forecast at the project level but at the overall portfolio level it kind of cancels each other out and then it gets just flagged if obviously we're not attracted stakeholder or shareholder so in that sense no it's not track at all and and partly because of and they don't know what we spend from.
 
 
00:10:41
 
 : Yeah. So there's there's two key components, right? One is we have the fast component and then is that sustainable? Is that something that we can easily trace? Is it a case that we don't have the best systems in place with finance kind of along the longevity of the project? And the second point I'm hearing is maybe it's actually not so valuable at all for the performance if we're considering ROI versus FPV. So is there a different perspective across the uh participants here or does that resonate with the quality sharing? I'm I'm curious Astroenica or Mercer I don't know where you guys are. Yeah, I would say it's similar to what you said there as well and like when we're looking at it at portfolio level too. It's that MPV that comes into it a lot of the time we're looking at it and it's almost a little bit surprising I feel like too with like the cost tracking at the lower level. You think it'll be better but I think it cancels out.
 
 
00:11:37
 
 : So to that extent that's why at the end if there's a large discrepancy then there's maybe a concern but I'd say it's most but the NPV can't be measured anymore if you are at the present time right so if you are in the future so to measure if your NPV was right you need to go back in time like five years back and do the discounting then from them because today's you know what I mean well the NPV is based on the forecast still right yeah but the NPV takes The NPV takes out all the past investments that are before today, before today's year. And if you are at launch, everything is in the past. The complete R&D is in the past. The pre pre-launch marketing is in the past. So your NPV can can be compared because you need to go back in time and then your your old data is not at the right um for example currency or inflation anymore, right? Yeah. So what what most companies do is to measure against net sales planning maybe margin cost of goods but this undiscounted and then you see we had a plan of sales 80 million and we have 50 million ahead of whatsoever but for the for the technical terms that are used for the decision in the portfolio plan like NPV ROI time money at risk um IR it's difficult to go to look at those.
 
 
00:13:05
 
 : Yeah. Because if you are in the market you look at debit margin, gross margin, market share, number of patients treated and so on. So it's it's different KPIs actually. Yes. Um what I did from 12 years ago I look back in time to post deal reviews but this was more for deals with external companies. Mhm. So yeah, what would you have changed or what is the assumption now if you were able to travel back in time 5 years, 3 years and you knew the future, how would you behave differently? Yeah. A little bit of postmortem analysis. Postmortm in the negative, but also if you did the deal. Yeah. Because then you can compare really what you planned three years ago and was three years after the deal actually. So three years ago. Yeah. You could be a bit more benevolent, right? We could say post hawk rather than postm. Correct. Correct. Let's kill this first step of analysis would be very valuable if you wouldn't actually direct actions from them in reality or at least in our companies.
 
 
00:14:05
 
 : These are just done under see what's caused not not in the positive cases or negative. not to identify good practice just to avoid bad practice deviation from plan maybe I don't know yeah know if if it's too good no one worked out let's just keep going I think one um yeah one aspect is that um uh if you only look at one measure it may trick you so for instance if you only look at MPV uh everything that's late it looks super interesting and and will kind of trump anything that is early in development. So, so Kelvin talked about value of information which I think is a really good way to see uh given this cost, how much do we gain from taking ourselves from phase one to phase two for that's very interesting. So I think you need a combination of many rather than just having one holy benchmark within face or kind of prioritize within face. Obviously, it's not fair to compare a phase one program with a phase three program, but within a phase more within your phase one portfolio, it will still prioritize.
 
 
00:15:29
 
 : Yeah. So, but still uh value of information takes into account cost. Uh of course, MPV does that as well. But if if we look at cost as something that is constrained uh then we we cannot only use value we also need to see how far our our budget takes us. So I I yeah I would still think that uh having a couple of KPIs that reflect different perspectives is is the best. Yes. So this is a very interesting point. I want to make sure everyone can uh engage a little bit. So I wanted to shift maybe a little bit. We've been hearing um if we were to use one KPI or even a set of KPIs um we would still have to look at how we looking to prioritize. Right? So the colleague here, sorry I think I didn't catch your name. Fiona Fiona uh was explaining okay if I'm making a decision about all the trials we have in phase one right is that an approach that would stand or you know with the complexities that we have today across assets that have multiple indications and everything else like that what's your goal what what are you seeing currently being applied more are you doing the p prioritization by phase by trials that are at the same phase or are you doing the prioritization by trials that
 
 
00:17:04
 
 : are you know going towards the same um line of treatment and just making the the progress there. How you know because this perspective may be important in terms of when is the decision needed and do we have the right KPI to make that decision. So just just I would love us to have discuss a little bit about that and this what's most valuable is it deciding of everything that's on phase two at the same time. I know that like we would have like a pre-candidate selection say like dynamic portfolio review. So you would look at everything in that very early stage in its own and then the clinical will be looked at separately that and within those you're going to have various metrics that are feeding into the value component. So like your population size, LCI, whether you're first in class, best-in-class, obviously for the earlier ones, the best-in-class parts a lot more difficult to know, but the first in-class component is a big one that feeds into value there. Um, then like your pricing analogs probably too that might be relevant.
 
 
00:18:10
 
 : Um but we would kind of separate it like in that and then the clinical one I'm not actually sure like how much like the separation is within each of the phases in in those DPRs there but I know that like preclinical versus clinical separated out that sense that's good thank you Dominic um other thoughts from anyone in the table now unfortunately I'm not working on the therapeutic side so my projects We assess we try to assess RI but it's internal projects so don't have any cash flow or so decision making is quite different from can you take us through a little bit um in your case is there a prioritization needed at any point and are are any kind of decisions revised in terms of continuing the funding on this internal in that case the the prior the prioritization is made regarding the the global strategy internal strategy of the group and uh we are looking at the the the project does it fit to the to the strategy and uh what would be what is the expected value but uh on internal aspects so it could be reduce TTM or improve POS or save time yes specific activity But yeah, we will focus on the does it answer to a specific global strategic.
 
 
00:19:47
 
 : Yeah. Okay. Um so does does the um does the group here feel then like the approach that is currently uh being used in the organizations around value measurement throughout the progress? Um has changed recently? uh and if it hasn't would it need to change based on what we are being discussing here. Um from from my perspective, I feel like there there are definitely some shifts happening in terms of not necessarily the the criteria that is applied but a little bit more around um tearing that criteria and trying to simplify the the decision. Um so by criteria you mean the five R? Um yeah, just trying to um make the um try to make some of the decisions a little bit more data le directly rather than um more heavy uh discussions based on more opinions that that's the the trends is that across all because I feel like at the earlier like preclinical stage or like you know selection part like it does seem to be somewhat more opinions that are driving it from like the lead scientists to a degree but then the data aspect coming in and I think we're trying to bring the value narrative in there's been push to bring it in earlier in the discussion but it's hard as you earlier in development less information's known so you're actually trying to assign value to it is
 
 
00:21:34
 
 : quite difficult but um are you bringing that like data narrative and like as the sole driving factor so like if someone wanted to override it could they or is it like purely the data that would decide the tearing Um it's it's more the latter because you know I'm I'm more focused on the on the medical affairs piece. So that's a little bit more at that intersection where there is more engagement with a larger part of the HCP community. So there's definitely more insight. So what we're trying to do is basically have systems that can you know standardize a little bit different voices and just trying to make sure that the local market voices can be a little bit more elevated to make decisions like global decisions not just at local market. Yeah. So that's a little bit kind of a I I don't know food for thought maybe. Um let's hear from the colleague here. You've been a little bit quiet. What was your name? Jeff. Yes. Yes.
 
 
00:22:33
 
 : Um, well, I don't know. I think I I I see a variety. So, at the moment at Rush, I agree with you. We don't use ROI. Oh, you wouldn't normally rush. Rush. Rush. Yeah. But consulting, but Rush. So, I I I agree with everything that you said, but um ROI is a vehicle that is used more for internal projects for uh business transformations. It's not something that we see for pipeline. um nor do I think that there is anything that's just not the culture. We don't we're not driven by an ROI in my opinion. That's just not how how we're structured. So, but we're also not driven by anything in place of an ROI. It's I don't know how to explain it, but it's just very much a What is the new driver? That's interesting. You just mention what you're not driven by. It's more along the lines of innovation. Yeah. But you want to make money with it.
 
 
00:23:28
 
 : No, but that doesn't come that doesn't come to the business. The making money part is very segmented at a very executive level. We work in an innovation and and we might get told some molecule cancel project cancel but this part they're actually trying to push through this now more like until recent until two years ago for anything before phase three we didn't even have now of all but this the head of R&D still sometimes says and the only thing we know about for causes is that they're wrong anyways. Well, that's true as well. Yeah. And I think that's the thing with the scientist. But that's something something I scientists also have like it's like their pet projects as well. So they do what they're interested in as long as

... [transcript truncated]