Best Practices in MSL Team Management (PH139)

MSL Tasks Report Sample

The following is excerpted from Chapter 1, "Staffing the MSL Team." This particular section addresses MSL performance metrics and compensation.

To retain top talent, companies must establish a fair and clear method of assessment. This can consist of a mix of objective metrics, even those that may not always evaluate quality, and qualitative metrics, but there must be concrete, reachable goals that apply to each MSL's activities. A Company 1 MSL manager acknowledged the difficulty of assessing individual MSL performance when team objectives take primacy. For the MSL as a position, team objectives are the more important goal. But to warrant bonuses or raises and to ensure a solid career path for talented MSLs, specific objectives must be established for each MSL.

In contrast, some companies go too far with the individual rankings. Company 9, for example, forces every MSL assessment into a bell curve with rankings of one through 10. There cannot be too many high rankings. If there are, MSL managers must adjust rankings as the evaluations move up the chain, and MSL teams are compared across the company. This undercuts the company's own goals. If MSL teams are hiring the right candidates, all of them should be able to perform at a high level. But if excellent MSLs are continually undervalued because of a theoretical model, they will move to another company.

Proving value to internal stakeholders goes hand-in-hand with ensuring that individuals are recognized for their achievements. The goal is to build from the individual to the aggregate. Individual goals should fit within team objectives while also serving as a measure of an MSL's individual contributions and value to the company.

The following excerpt is taken from Chapter 2, "MSL Program Structure and Territory Sizing in the US, Europe and Other Affiliates." This section covers organizational oversight of MSL teams.

The data collected on MSL programs' structural oversight underscore the liaison team's role in the overall organization. According to survey data, 91% of responding companies' MSL teams report through medical affairs organizations, as shown in Figure 2.2. [data shown in full report] This majority of companies establishing structural oversight for MSLs under medical affairs is an indication of the degree to which MSLs play a role in drug companies' strategies.

Many companies can point to examples in which their earliest MSL teams consisted of highly skilled sales reps who had acquired enough scientific knowledge to work more closely with research-oriented opinion leaders. But as the industry shifts toward greater transparency in its relationships with key opinion leaders, MSLs play a greater strategic role in communicating the important scientific value that their relationships with KOLs provide. Therefore, companies' organizational oversight of MSLs, coming from the medical affairs function, is aligned properly with the changing times. Further emphasizing this point, only 2% of surveyed companies' MSL teams continue to have ties to the commercial organization. In contrast, in 2005, Cutting Edge Information's research found that 13% of drug companies' MSL teams reported through the sales organization, and another 14% reported through marketing and commercial operations. In 2008, no MSL teams reported through the sales organization, and the percentage of marketing and commercial operations functions overseeing MSL teams had dropped to 8%.