The Government needs to do more to support life sciences in the UK and create an environment where the industry can flourish, a new survey has found.

RSA’s The UK Life Sciences Leaders’ Survey 2011 revealed worries over the NHS reforms, medicine pricing and reimbursement, employment issues and the cost of research amongst its leaders.

Nick Stephens, CEO of RSA, says the Government “urgently needs to do more to ensure that education, regulation, access to medicines and the NHS research base align to support the industry’s continued contribution to the UK economy”.

The report is the second annual survey of industry bosses. Last year the general feeling was of optimism with leaders believing the recently elected coalition Government would improve the business environment.

But twelve months later the mood has changed with results finding leaders claim the UK is not competing effectively globally, creating opportunities for early phase/smaller companies or making the most of its unique selling points: the NHS and skills in innovation and discovery.

Leaders also raised concerns about the increasing cost of working in the UK, the implication of R&D as a result of the NHS reforms, the regulatory burden on operations and the process from development to market. They also advised that fiscal and tax incentives should be given to SMEs to help their growth and the UK compete globally.

Worries were also raised about the introduction of value-based pricing. However, in contrast, health technology assessments were broadly welcomed as a means of enhancing value and meeting therapeutic requirements, the report found.

During the tough economic environment, the survey found that leaders would focus on innovation, creating flexible organisations and processes, and refocusing research and development to weather the current storm.

In a perfect world, leaders revealed they would investing in R&D and make the healthcare sector, regulatory and commercial environment work closer together to achieve better outcomes for patients and the pharmaceutical industry.

Stephen Whitehead, CEO, ABPI, says the survey shows more support is needed for biopharmaceutical companies in the ever-changing NHS. “There is much that the Government has done to support the industry, particularly through the Growth Review and the Office for Life Sciences,” he said. “But we need to build on this as part of a continuing relationship with NHS and Government to explore how unnecessary bureaucracy can be eliminated from the healthcare system so that new treatments can reach patients as quickly as possible.”

UK pharmaceutical companies conducting early stage clinical trials will be able to collaborate more extensively with leading medical academics following the government’s launch of two pioneering partnership programmes designed to accelerate the development of innovative treatments from lab to patient.

The first two National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) translational partnerships – in respiratory and joint-related inflammatory diseases – will give life science companies access to a ‘unique network of top clinical scientists’ in government-funded research facilities, leading universities and the NHS.

The government says the partnerships will also provide unparalleled access to ‘cohorts of well-characterised patients’ – cutting through red tape to speed up the recruitment and testing of NHS patients, and ensuring quicker access to life-changing new therapies.

Access to the Partnerships will be via the NIHR Office for Clinical Research Infrastructure (NOCRI), meaning that when a company wants to collaborate, only one legal agreement is required rather than having to negotiate with each NHS Trust and University.

The new initiative represents an attempt to address a sharp decline in the UK’s reputation as a world-class location for medical research, and also reflect a growing appetite across the pharmaceutical industry to find efficiencies in its R&D model through greater collaboration with external specialists.

David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, said the research partnerships would provide a unique model for collaboration between the life sciences industry, the NHS and universities. “They will be a key driver of growth and innovation, reducing the time it takes to translate research into benefits for patients and the economy,” he said.

The ABPI has welcomed the initiative, citing collaborative working with clinical academic investigators as pivotal to the changing model of drug development for the pharmaceutical industry. “Translational Research Partnerships offer an efficient and effective way for companies to work with some of the UK’s leading translational research experts through NOCRI,” said Dr Allison Jeynes-Ellis, Medical and Innovation Director, ABPI. “Companies will see great advantages to working with the partnerships and consequently they will attract ground-breaking research into the UK.”

The government will provide £1.3 million to help set up the first two partnerships; inflammatory respiratory disease and joint and related inflammatory diseases. The NIHR partnership for translational research on respiratory diseases – such as asthma, COPD, allergies, cystic fibrosis and acute lung injury – includes hospitals and universities in Northern Ireland, Oxford, Manchester, Southampton and London. The partnership in joint and related inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, and synovitis, includes Barts and the London NHS Trust, the University of Birmingham, UCLH and Cambridge University.

Terms of the partnership are likely to include identifying more efficient ways of tapping into suitable patient groups for clinical trials, and unlocking funding beyond life science investment in exchange for shared intellectual property rights for any breakthrough discoveries.

Are you lacking motivation and confidence at work? Do you feel anxious about the security of your job? As employment statistics continue to deteriorate, we could put these feelings down to the saddening status of the economy, but is that really a good enough excuse to work in a job you don’t enjoy?

Don’t get me wrong, we should always feel grateful for our job, especially in the current climate. But our jobs are what make us get up in the mornings. So, shouldn’t we make the most of our 40+ hours a week?

In any case, if you’re feeling down in the dumps at the moment and have realised that it’s not the economy, but actually, you’re not enjoying your job, it could be time for a change of scene.

Ask yourself these questions:

• How long have you be in your current job?
• Has your salary increased since your last job?
• Are your responsibilities at work increasing or decreasing?
• Are you involved in important decision making at work?
• Do you feel challenged by your role?
• Are you just hopping from one employer to the next staying in the same position?
• Have people hired after you been promoted faster?
• Do your colleagues seek out work advice from you?
• Do you dread going to work?

It’s pretty obviously which of these answers are good and which are bad signs of what you should do next.

It may be a case of considering other roles, as it’s true what they say: It’s much easier to find a job if you have a job. In which case, give an honest analysis of your career as it stands and assess your long-term objectives. Are you doing what you always wanted to? Is your current job a step in the right direction?

If not, or you can think of something better and more relevant to your personal career goals, no time like the present to sort yourself out. It’s only too easy to become too comfortable with your job and falling into a career slump.

But, it could also mean that you should think about discussing your feelings with your boss. Ask how you can contribute more to the company, and use your initiative to put forward some ideas to keep things fresh and involving. You’re more likely to enjoy your work if you’re doing different things and being recognised for your efforts.

A career rut is never easy and new opportunities can often feel out of sight. But if you’re feeling unmotivated and lacking stimulation in your job, it’s worth having a serious think about what you should really do.

Visit PharmaJobs for the latest vacancies in pharmaceutical sales.

In times of economic turmoil, we are all feeling the pinch of our increasingly tightened belts, even those who are working in positions that are thought to be significantly safer.

In fact, recent statistics collected by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have revealed that business leaders are actually missing adequate leadership skills.

According to the CIPD’s survey, UK Highlights: Global Leadership Forecast, only a third (36%) of UK leaders and one in five (18%) of UK HR professionals rated the quality of leadership as ‘high’ at their own organisations. These figures are unsettling as leaders have admitted lacking the key qualities to encourage success in the workplace.

As we all know, effective leadership in pharma is important to managing a team and achieving success in long-term business strategies, especially as we have now apparently double dipped ourselves in the already soul-destroying recession. It just seems a shame that leaders don’t feel like they are sufficiently trained to be ‘leader of the pack’.

So why are leaders suddenly feeling self-conscious?

Maybe it’s the pressure? I’m sure that everyone has felt a knock of confidence since the recession began. So, leaders must truly feel the blunt of the blow as they try to muster enough poise to carry on and motivate their team. And it’s true. As a figurehead, the leader must represent their employees as one and motivate them through this dark time.

Of course, there remains many talented leaders in the marketplace - both within pharma and outside of it -  but as businesses tighten the purse strings, attracting them against a backdrop of fiscal prudence, is proving challenging. Companies are desperately seeking leaders with innovative ideas for growth - but finding and attracting them is another matter.

Vanessa Robinson, Head of HR Practice Development, CIPD, notes the predicament that we face, as “Leadership development budgets remain tight, particularly in the UK, yet effective leaders make a real difference to the success of organisations.”

So it seems the issue of leadership creates a catch-22 effect as we come to realise the importance and worth of great leadership to encourage business success but also struggle to find the money to fund it. Perhaps ‘speculate to accumulate’ should be our way of thinking when it comes to leadership in future? How would you rate the leadership at your organisation?

Finding the best employer is like playing the dating game. No-one wants to be married to their job, but tying the knot with an employer is an important commitment. The strongest relationships can last a lifetime, while playing the field may not look quite so good on your CV. So what is it that attracts us to our employers? Do we marry for money, or is long-term fulfillment enough? And is a good sense of humour essential? Pf’s Emma Campbell-Kelly outlines some of the key criteria in identifying ‘The One’.

The summer months, particularly the holiday season, are often the time when most of us pause and reflect on where we are in life. That two-week break in the Maldives, or even just the back garden, can invariably provide the catalyst for some killer questions: Am I in the right job? Does my employer appreciate me? Do I appreciate my employer? Is it time for me to move on? For many, this period of reflection provides little more than confirmation that they are happy where they are. In the current climate, where job security is king and fear of moving jobs has bred a ‘better the devil you know’ approach, many workers are staying put rather than risking change. But for some, a ‘grass is always greener’ philosophy drives them towards the pursuit of new employment. But what do you look for in a new employer? What defines the perfect job and, indeed, an employer of choice? Where do you begin in the pursuit of professional happiness?

Searching for a new job can be a daunting endeavour. Whether it’s your decision to enter the vacancy abyss or not, the task can be arduous and time-consuming. Slim pickings are expected in such a precarious economic climate, but there’s still a world of decisions to make: location, role, salary and even whether you are looking in the right industry are all key considerations.

The experience is similar to becoming newly single, in the market for a new partner. Job sites and recruitment companies could be metaphors for dating agencies in this case, or a friend who’s trying to set you up, or a speed dating session.

And you must select employers from this pool of availability in a similar way to how you would approach someone to ask them out. Like a relationship, a job is an investment, and will define you for the period you choose to stay committed to it. You want the whole package: ‘The One’. It will stay on your record, your personal history, or rather your CV. No pressure then.

What do you look for? Materialistic features (financial details) are number one priority for most. Your interest in a job or person is sparked by judging at face value. It’s not necessarily shallow, because what else can you base your judgement on in the first instance? Being objective with your search is key to obtaining a job that will tick all the boxes for you.

So once you’ve landed your first ‘date’ with the desired employer, aka job interview, first impressions are too important to disregard. You dress to impress, revise your CV, and prepare answers to every question under the sun. Both parties want to impress, without coming across as too keen. But at the end of the day, you want this job, you wouldn’t have applied otherwise. And the employer wants the best they can get (which is you, obviously). After all, as Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, said: “You’re only as good as the people you hire.” So it’s potentially a win-win situation, as long as you both get what you want.

Job satisfaction has always come top of surveys questioning motivation at work. Until now. It seems that such an insecure and volatile economy is making us tighten our belts (as if they weren’t tight enough already). Living costs are continuing to rise, a unanimous, desperate ‘Yes please’ is given in response to money. The prospect of a double-dip recession has hit us while we’re down, just as we were getting our hopes up.

With this in mind, it’s no surprise when perusing the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s (CIPD) recent quarterly Employee Outlook survey. The review showed that increased salary and benefit packages have overtaken job satisfaction as the number one reason why employees are looking to change jobs.

Out of 2,000 questioned employees, 54% rated higher salary and benefits as their top reason for wanting to change jobs, while 42% said that job satisfaction drove their career move choices. This is a sharp reversal compared to last year’s 61% voting job satisfaction over 48% monetary reasons to look for alternative employment. A shocking revelation from the survey showed that almost a fifth (18%) of employees completely run out of money before they’re paid, either always or most of the time. So the financial pressure is on, it seems.

But are finances what get us out of bed in the morning? We recall how the carrot beat the stick regarding the donkey’s motivation. But what does the carrot mean to you?

Is it salary, benefits, a fancy company car? For some people, especially those who are struggling financially at the moment, the answer would be a giant nod of the head. But what about the 42% who voted job satisfaction as their motivation to work hard?

For this group, an employer’s treatment of its workers and management skills really makes a difference. It’s the little things that contribute to their career happiness. A friend you can confide in, belief in your product, respect for your manager; the buzz of adrenaline when you know you’ve done a good job.

Company culture has always been a vital aspect of work life. Your co-workers are with you for a significant portion of the day, so team dynamics are important. Henry Ford of Ford Motor Company had the right thinking: “Our employees are like extended members of our family.” The company should run like a well-oiled machine at all levels, complementing and developing each other’s roles and responsibilities. Confidence and trust glue the team together and make everyday errands pass by effortlessly.

There’s no doubt about it, your happiness at a company is largely directed by what you do for at least 40 hours a week. And let’s face it – your working life is a long one, so it’s best to do something you enjoy. It’s been proven time after time that you’re more likely to work harder if you’re passionate about your job. Happy people are more energetic, proactive, creative and optimistic, and quicker to learn. In which case it’s in your employer’s interest to make you happy.

This is largely down to how you’re managed. Management and guidance at work largely affect your work ethic and the company’s dynamics. “Management is nothing more than motivating other people,” stated Lee Iacocca, Chairman for Chrysler Motors. Management is a crucial role to play, because your workforce implicitly relies on your motivation to work. Donald Trump once said, “Good people = good management and good management = good people.”

Money can only promise a limited amount of will-power from an individual; pride in their work will give them the edge and a hunger for success. Belief in your product, trust, loyalty and commitment to the employer are also invaluable attributes for an employee to embody, and are recognised by good employers. As Mary Kay Ash, Head of Mary Kay cosmetics, stated: “People are definitely a company’s greatest asset. A company is only as good as the people it keeps.”

So perhaps, most of all, we just need to feel loved. Being treated well, as in a committed relationship, ensures that we’re in it for the long haul.

In July, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a report on what makes Brits happy. Not money, as it turns out. Health, family and friends topped the list when around 34,000 people were asked “What is wellbeing?” and “What in life matters to you?”

The survey was commissioned by David Cameron to help him develop future policies, but ironically critics have since complained that the £2 million to conduct the survey was a waste of money as the results are quite obvious. We’re never happy, are we?

But at the end of the day, as much as money is a necessity to live, happiness in yourself and at work increases quality of life, and helps boost your company at the same time. A happy workforce is a productive workforce after all.

From an employer, you want to be pushed to your full potential, appreciated for your effort, made responsible for important decisions, making you believe in your product and employer.

Working life is most enjoyable if you’re lucky enough to be in the position of not worrying about money. To have an enthralling occupation puts a spring in your step.

And as much as looking for a new job can be tiresome and sometimes feels like a dead end, just remember, it’s all in aid of finding ‘The One’, your soulmate that offers the whole package: an invigorating role with great prospects. And if the money’s good at the same time, all the better. So make it a good one with good people.

Modern business now places a heavy reliance on the concept of outsourcing. Strategists across all sectors have recognised the potential for third-party organisations to manage key business functions, find efficiencies and drive growth. The pharmaceutical industry has been an active participant in the trend towards outsourcing services – not least in the key areas of sales and marketing. Pf’s Iain Bate looks at the global phenomenon of outsourcing.

The concept of outsourcing is not a modern ideology. The approach first came to prominence in the 1950s when specialist functions, such as advertising and legal services, were outsourced to third-parties by organisations large and small. From little acorns… In today’s business environment, as companies assess their core competencies, anything from research and development, manufacturing and marketing services to IT, Human Resourcing, accounting and supply chain activities are considered fair game to be outsourced.

Lift-off came during the 1990s, when rapid technological change and an increased sense of competitiveness saw companies take note of the flexibility, cost-saving potential and reduced risk in operations that contract organisations could offer. This quickly led to outsourcing services becoming widespread in developed economies.

The pharmaceutical industry has contributed heavily to the growth of outsourcing – in particular in the areas of Contract Research and Contract Sales. Contract Sales Organisations (CSOs) are now a major player within pharma. They manage a growing proportion of sales in the sector and, according to research by the Kalorama Information, the CSO market has been forecast to exceed $5bn by the end of the year. Of course it’s not just in pharma where CSOs have become popular, but without the pharma sector as a whole, it could be argued that the global market for contract sales would be nowhere near as significant as it is today.

Leading the way

It was largely the pharmaceutical industry which pioneered the use of CSOs and began outsourcing tactical sales effort. The provision of flexible and, in many cases, short-term resource to augment the efforts of the in-house sales force proved popular among many pharmaceutical companies. Since then a growth in the principle of outsourcing sales has seen CSOs develop their portfolios to offer a wide range of services beyond the tactical ‘share of voice’ model.

Beth Rogers, Principal Lecturer of Sales Management at Portsmouth University – and the former Chair of the UK National Sales Board and Research Director of the Institute of Sales and Marketing Management – says it was, and still is, this variety of services and the opportunity to trim costs which makes CSOs appealing.

But, certainly in a cold economy where finding efficiencies and delivering return on investment have become imperative, perhaps the biggest draw is flexibility.

“From my research, flexibility has been heavily emphasised by people I’ve been talking to who use CSOs – both providers and users,” says Beth. “It’s about effective sales resourcing as well as being efficient. Contract sales absorb some of the risk when you’re trying to be speedy to market with something which may have a relatively short life span. I think for pharma companies, it’s not so much that they’re gaining on operational costs, they’re certainly avoiding fixed costs, and that’s a factor.”

Modern day CSOs now get called upon for a variety of projects. Product launches are a common area in which they are used, but beyond this they are increasingly being asked to provide more specialist expertise for longer periods of time; clinical audits, nurse advisor programmes, Key Account Management, healthcare development and payer engagement are all areas where CSOs are being used to provide services. In some companies, contract resource is the only sales resource deployed. This represents a much more sophisticated use of contract sales than in many other sectors. “In some industries, CSOs are used for part of the sales process,” said Beth. “For example, it might make sense to have CSOs focused up to a certain point, until a degree of in-house expertise is needed to be applied. So you can get a hand-over from a contractor to a permanent employee once a lead has been developed.”

Past reputations

But despite the efficient and cost effective services CSOs are known to offer there still seems to be a reputation they have found difficult to shake off in some quarters. A study by Health Strategies Group in the US reported that contracted representatives had more difficulty accessing health professionals – doctors in particular. The study showed that in-house reps had more than a third (33%) more ‘sit-down’ visits than their contracted counterparts. But Beth believes that any former interpretations of CSOs that may still linger today are eroding, if they haven’t already.

“It may be a hangover from history – the kind of rent-a-rep image,” she added. “In fact, a lot of doctors are looking at e-detailing or telephone-detailing, so they’ve probably got a lot of choices on how they receive details. So, when they do want to see somebody personally, maybe they have got to a stage of knowledge where they want to see somebody with in-house expertise. I think CSOs are so widely accepted in the sector that there’s no real acute difference anymore. Ultimately there’s CSOs reps who have worked in pharma and vice-versa, so it’s probably a bit of a hangover from history which is on a downward trend.”

But not all companies have bought into the CSO model. Why is this? “I suppose it’s probably a cultural differentiation,” explains Beth. “Obviously some pharma companies have a very long history and perhaps were founded by philanthropists who had a paternal approach to staff and that remains today. That’s one possible reason. Another may be that a specialised firm with a particular medical specialisation might feel that, with the amount of training that staff would need, they would prefer to have them on a long-term contract.

“Beyond pharma, what tends to make the difference between high and low levels of outsourcing is to do with ‘cultural difference’. Differences in products/service and also sometimes variations in who in the customer organisation you are dealing with is, or whether you’re dealing with multiple people. Wherever selling has a high proportion of non-selling activity it could be a case of, ‘this could be a long sales cycle and it’s difficult to predict’, and therefore a permanent employment arrangement seems to have more advantages.”

The next generation

Yet there can be no mistake that the future is a bright one for CSOs. As the economy continues to bite and more business look to trim their wage bills, Beth believes that it won’t be just pharma that will come to rely on their flexible friends more often – especially with the potential, and promise in some cases – of new multiple models.

“I think for most sales managers in the sector it might be unpleasant. For many years there seemed to be a clear correlation between market share and feet on the street – particularly if you look at the past information from the US,” she said. “The reason that’s changing is partly because Government policy is creating some ups-and-downs in the market in terms of listing. There’s also general economic uncertainty, which means that shareholders are jumping up and down, and so, consequently, depending on history and specialisation, and decision makers that you’re working with, it’s probably more important than ever for sales managers to have choices and perhaps mix-and-match the way they use employed and contract staff.

“As it is there’s syndicated, dedicated, short-term and long-term contract models and that’s also happening in other industry sectors as well. I think we can trace the disintegration of the ‘feet-on-the-street’ equals market share model to about 2005/06. That was when it really started to look like we were going to have to do something differently. Now, five years later, the industry is testing out new models which are going to suit new circumstances. That’s where CSOs have an advantage being able to upscale and downscale quickly.”

CSOs are by no means an easy fix to problem solving. There is a risk and companies should study the history of outsourcing core and noncore function if they are to avoid making mistakes. But with convenient, flexible and adaptable teams of experienced staff able to transform performance it would seem CSOs look set to continue their close association with industries across the globe.

Union reps and officials are pessimistic about the prospects for the economy and their own futures, a survey has shown.

The Labour Research Department survey revealed that 44% think the economy will shrink in 2011 and 54% expect a below-inflation pay rise.

Lewis Emery, LRD pay researcher, says the findings show the Government cannot expect “an easy route out of the economic doldrums”.

A total of 188 union workplace contacts and officials took part in the survey from both the private and public sector.

More than a quarter (28%) feel that pay is likely to rise at or above the rate of price increase for most workers, with 6% expecting a pay freeze and 2% a pay cut.

Worries about pay extend to job cuts, with 80% expecting reductions in the public sector and 60% in the private sector anticipating staff levels will be reduced in 2011.

As a result, more than half (57%) say job security is their main priority, with the trend more evident in the public sector where four in five, compared to a third in the private sector, say it is of greatest importance.