Figure 3: Overall, how satisfied are you with the work that has been done for you by Clinical Service Providers (Top 20 in
Figure 4: In general, how satisfied are you with the value that you have received for the money spent on your Clinical Service
Providers (Top 20 in revenue)?
Addressing the last of these issues first, the increased satisfaction rates of 2011 clearly cannot be accounted for only by
improvements in the service rendered by providers to Big Pharma. In fact, sponsor companies below the Top 20 mark in terms
of revenue experienced greater satisfaction gains in 2011 than did their larger counterparts. As can be seen in Figure 3,
satisfaction levels are now nearly identical for Top 20 companies and smaller companies, though the larger companies remain
less likely to be "dissatisfied." In 2011, Top 20 companies continue to be more satisfied with the value received for their outsourcing dollars than are smaller
companies (Figure 4), though both large and smaller companies have become more satisfied since 2010. The satisfaction of sponsors also does not appear to depend on the fraction of work outsourced to the largest global providers
(Figure 5), although companies that make very little use of the largest CROs may be the least satisfied with the service received.
Figure 5: Overall, how satisfied are you with the work that has been done for you by Clinical Service Providers (% of spend
to largest global CROs)?
Instead, the patterns seen in the 2011 data are much like those uncovered in previous Avoca surveys: high levels of outsourcing
satisfaction appear to depend more on what companies do than on what they (or their service providers) are. In particular,
those sponsor companies that utilize a more formal, structured approach to outsourcing do appear to enjoy the fruits of those
Figure 6: Overall, how satisfied are you with the work that has been done for you by Clinical Service Providers? (Use of metrics
to evaluate performance of CROs with respect to quality)
In past Avoca surveys there has been a clear relationship between whether a sponsor company uses an adequate set of metrics
in provider management, and satisfaction with the work performed. In 2011, we continue to see this relationship. As a group,
respondents from companies that use formal sets of metrics to evaluate the quality of deliverables produced by CROs are more
likely to be satisfied, and less likely to be dissatisfied, than are those that do not use such an approach (Figure 6). Moreover, among those who use such metrics, those whose metrics are adequate in both scope and design, and who incorporate
these metrics into contracts with providers, are more likely to be satisfied than are those whose metrics do not meet all
three of these criteria (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Overall, how satisfied are you with the work that has been done for you by Clinical Service Providers? (Metrics
are adequate in scope and design, and incorporated into contracts with CROs)