Why hasn't software fixed collaboration yet?

Collaboration within organizations is grounded in what we call the three Cs: Content, Communication, and Coordination. Let me define these concepts for you:

1. Content: This is the information needed to get things done.
2. Communication: It's the tool we use to share content.
3. Coordination: This is the process of how we communicate content.

But before we dive in, here a short intro:

Hey, I'm Zina Sarif, CEO @ Yendou, a data and workflow automation platform designed for ClinOps teams. Each week, I chat with executives from the Life Sciences Industry to discuss the game of clinical trials, the rising costs, the urge to innovate, the pressure for speed, and how to navigate operational inefficiencies on the road to commercialization. This newsletter is my response to all the requests to share my thoughts publicly. To receive the issue in your mailbox ?? subscribe here.

<Start>

Let’s dive in each!

1. Content:

Content encompasses various forms of data, whether structured or unstructured, including Word documents, spreadsheets, and eHR sheets. The tools for content management range from modern cloud-based CRMs, essentially relational databases, to cloud storage platforms such as Box, Dropbox, and Google Drive. Spreadsheets and at the far end of the spectrum, we even find traditional paper folders. We are well aware of the pros and cons of each option, with paper, for instance, .... We get to touch paper, I guess.

Have you touched the grass today?

2. Communication:

Communication has persisted over thousands of years in primarily verbal or written forms, although video communication has now joined the mix. For an organization to function at its best, communication must be precise, concise, clear, and timely, adhering to established protocols.

Technology has been a reliable ally in meeting these communication needs, with couriers, digital mail, and asynchronous instant messaging platforms like MS Teams, WhatsApp, and social media. Remarkably, even fax still plays a role for those who prefer old-school methods.

3. Coordination:

Coordination today relies heavily on human beings as a tool for organic communication. Coordinators are called “Managers”.

They either manage the communication between senior level and junior level. Or between client and employer, or stakeholders and employer, and so on ….

Coordination hasn’t been digitalised yet and as a result we got this:

Another very worrying statistic comes from McKinsey’s 2021 report stating that: Operational debt is what is holding life sciences companies back and with that innovation from scaling up. McKinsey report found nearly 70% decrease in R&D operational productivity in life sciences since work disruption through remote work.

Operational productivity is strongly dependent on the efficiency of information coordination.

But how comes no one has figured out Coordination yet?

We did, just not in Software!

3.1. The Production Line Analogy: Borrowing Insights from Manufacturing

To illustrate this, envision a production line where a product flows seamlessly from one station to the next. At specific stations, individuals oversee the timeliness of product flow and intervene only when necessary, a rare occurrence. This is all possible because coordination on the production line is automated.

Within this system, employees form a tightly knit team. Their workdays are dedicated to their specific contributions in advancing the product through the line. Monitoring and managing product development along this production line necessitate minimal communication between employees.

3.2. Automation in Production Lines: A Lesson in Trusting the Process

These employees don't look back; they trust the process and analytics. They're confident in the accuracy of previous steps and maintain a focus on their individual tasks. The introduction of automation has reduced the need for employees to run back and forth between stations, effectively minimizing repetitive movements.

Interestingly, automation on a production line also reduces the necessity for extensive communication to coordinate product movement from one station to another. In organizations where product development is heavily orchestrated through automation, the timely delivery of products from one station to the next is guaranteed, significantly reducing friction, largely attributed to the elimination of repetitive tasks.

In these organizations, automation is the key, and employees place their trust in the process.

3.3. Software versus Hardware: Bridging the Gap between Digital and Physical Automation

As of today, companies that heavily rely on software without substantial hardware automation, they face challenges. Software has excelled in providing centralized access to information and bridging communication gaps. But it has fallen short when it comes to enabling efficient content coordination. The primary tool available for this purpose is API integration. However, challenges arise when different teams use various software solutions, making it difficult to transfer information seamlessly. This often leads to employees spending excessive time requesting the same information repeatedly.

3.4. The Operational Debt: The Hidden Costs of Coordination Failures

A 2022 report reveals that nearly

60% of an average employee's workweek is wasted searching for internal information and coordinating with colleagues.

This inefficiency significantly impacts productivity, and it's particularly conspicuous in industries like life sciences, where operational efficiency has diminished due to the disruptions caused by remote work.

Conversations with clinical research operations in the pharmaceutical industry reveal that clinical research associates spend a considerable amount of time sending emails, tracking information, and requesting it from others. This valuable time could be better allocated to reviewing and verifying source data, and the development of patients recruitment and retention strategies.

3.5. Software and Coordination: The hard things about hard things

So, returning to our initial question, why does software struggle to mimic real-life collaboration?

The answer lies in the oversight of coordination. Ahead of their times, Some early movers such as IBM with their product Watson, have tried to tackle the coordination challenge decades ago. Unfortunately struggled to showcase the business value of coordination in unleashing business ROIs. The tech was intimidating for its time.

API technologies have shown more success. But while APIs can enable data centralization and keeping records updated across databases, as a technology, it is unable to ensure information flow within a process pipeline.

How can we reduce the load of communication needed to enable employees to focus on the task, instead of tracking down information, so they can get the task done at an organizational scale? Till 2020, this challenge of coordination is still one of the most neglected challenges by software solutions.

3.6. The Future of Coordination in Late Stage R&D:

In the case of Drug Development, AI- as well as non-AI-driven automation is able to automate and manage Site Sponsor communication, document flow, and compliances. Both Study Teams at the sponsor/CRO and Sites will be freed from the burden of logistics and admin-heavy relationships so they can focus on what matters, namely ensuring timely data entry, data correctness, and patient support in a stress-free collaborative environment.

More relevant to employee attention is the fact that automation reduces one of the biggest stressors at work: namely, the dependencies of team members on each other to get access to the information needed for them to get the job done. When automation streamlines the flow of information, team interdependencies are reduced, ultimately improving operational productivity.

Indeed, delegating the burden of information coordination to automation will make not only the sponsor-Site relationship more human but also the workplace.

In conclusion, the key to fixing coordination and addressing operational inefficiency in the life sciences industry lies in automation. Companies that invest in automating processes and optimizing them will achieve higher productivity at lower costs. Automation can expedite drug development timelines, making it possible to deliver treatments to patients sooner.

Automation is the tool that can liberate us from mundane work and contribute to overcoming diseases and improving healthcare.

Conclusion: What’s next for Enterprise Collaboration? Building Smart Organizations

To date, software has functioned as a mere tool within organizational operations. However, the future of software hold a radical shift toward the complete virtualization of organizational structures.

This future is opening the gates to the age of 'Smart Companies.' In this era, every company will boast a virtual headquarters, with each employee equipped with a digital robot. These robots will be tasked with specific responsibilities and programmed to execute both attended and unattended workflows.

At the helm of this transformation, executive AI-bots will diligently monitor the efficiency of input-output dynamics and adapt standard operating procedures (SOPs) to enhance productivity. Furthermore, all operational updates will undergo rigorous examination by AI Governance and regulatory bots, ultimately seeking approval from flesh-and-blood C-suite executives.

The evolution of software is synonymous with the evolution of work itself. In the not-so-distant future, the division between technology and humanity will vanish. As we await the advent of the metaverse, employee AI-assistants are well on their way, and their permanence is assured.

Imagine a world where creativity is no longer constrained by the mundane!

<End>

I would like to thank Asana for the amasing research they publish on Collaboration. Here a link to the latest report on Anatomy of Work.

If you would like to read more about why operational productivity matters, here an excerpt from my article "rethinking Clinical Operation"

"There was a man named Paul Strassmann. He served as the former Chief Information Officer at the Pentagon, and prior to taking up that role, he authored a book titled "The Business Value of Computers.”*

I would have recommended reading his book, but unfortunately, it is no longer in print, and Paul is no longer with us. Otherwise, I would have harassed him into publishing another edition.

In his book, he analyzed IT R&D spending of successful companies and non-successful companies and arrived at the realization that both allocated an equal 2% of their budgets to IT R&D.

The difference was that non-successful companies invested the 2% in management productivity, whereas successful companies directed it towards operational productivity." ... Read more here

P.S.: If you'd like to learn how we - at Yendou - leverage automation to fix coordination, please don't hesitate to reach out to me at [email protected].

Also don't miss to subscribe to?Late Stage Insider?and receive the issue in your mailbox ??