The investment can be measured by a boost in medical partners, increase in patient benefits, furthered practice development—and, most important, insight gained from the field to further R&D or product development. Although there is no direct, quantifiable answer executives want to know: "If I am developing this function and providing it as a resource to the medical community, are the MSLs being effective in placing this resource into the field?"

The survey, conducted with more than 28 major companies, revealed other ways to gauge MSLs: the number of presentations an MSL can give, the number of R&D projects they can take on, educational programs attended, thought-leader activities, managed-care activities arranged, and number of speaker slide shows reviewed.

One of the most common ways to measure liaison success is to include comments from thought leaders as part of a company relationship-management system. Evidence-based outcome and performance reports also can be implemented to gauge a liaison's initial goals and objectives when starting a project, track their progress in the field, and allow management to rate the effectiveness of the project. Some categories used to rate MSLs include: follow-up reports, scientific rigor, understanding compliance guidelines, and appropriate responsiveness to inquiries from the medical community.

One of the best ways to demonstrate an MSL's worth is by their ability to demonstrate performance compared with established goals, objectives and clear roles and responsibilities. Performance metrics in general should be tied to both corporate goals and objects and individual position responsibilities. Every company also should provide their MSLs with career-development opportunities that include targeted metrics and performance plans. MSLs should be evaluated based on their ability to effectively navigate between both the business and science of a company on an independent basis, and to communicate high-level scientific information appropriately.

Moreover, there should be continued internal communications regarding the success and activities of the MSL department. This not only will expand awareness of the team internally, but also serve as an opportunity to educate other functional areas about MSLs' ongoing, significant contributions, and add definition to MSLs' roles.

Non-Traditional Metrics

Just because a group is regionally based, that does not mean that their work should be based on sales activities, such as call frequency or call cycles for interactions with thought leaders. Some of the healthcare providers upon whom many MSLs are focused may not write any prescriptions, yet still be important to them and their companies because of the literature they publish or their involvement with developing treatment guidelines. When a company builds a MSL department, it should be viewed as a long-term investment strategy rather than a short-term fix. MSLs maintain the intellectual capital developed from relationships with significant thought leaders, from bench to bedside, as a product or device evolves.

Furthermore, the thought leaders that a MSL may focus upon may vary due to the specific clinical challenge or product lifecycle stage. The type of primary investigator or thought leader during a preclinical or early clinical development stage may not be the same type of individual with whom MSLs will interact when a product or device is at a later stage of product development.

In the end, there is no single answer or yardstick that measures MSLs in all stages of product lifecycle development. The reality is: Metrics should be a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures, tailored to an individual company's needs and culture.

Robin L. Winter-Sperry, MD, is president of Scientific Advantage. She can be reached at r.winter-sperry@scientificadvantage.com

Andre Mann, MD, works as a medical affairs consultant. He can be reached at andre.mann@scientificadvantage.com