Without a plan, 10 can see no further than 1

Imagine two teams of ten.

In Team A, each member is given your plan and asked whether, in their experience, it can work, and whether it is a good idea.

In Team 1, each member is given the same plan, and asked what they know that could improve the plan.

These teams of ten include regulatory, clinical, IP, commercial, manufacturing, formulation, supply chain, IT, translational science and market access.

In Team A, the plan can only be as good as it is when it is handed out. It is vulnerable to any one of team A's members saying they don't think it can work, or if it's not worth trying. When they meet, they go around the table and say what they think, individually. It is left to the plan writer to take their comments at face value, or argue.

In Team 1, just imagine if, as they go around the table:

• The regulator points out a novel pathway that was unknown to the plan writer. He can find out more, if you're interested.
• The clinical lead suggests a decentralised approach that could increase recruitment rates. She can provide figures, if you're interested
• IP show how a novel patent could be gained, if the plan is subtly altered. Would you like to hear more?
• Commercial suggests a more interesting segment, if an endpoint could be varied. Would you like that to be modelled?
• The formulation scientist reveals that the compound can be nanoformed, making a monthly injection possible. Would you be interested in a proof of concept?
• The supply chain colleague points out that, if the compound is nanoformed, time and cost of distribution is halved
• IT suggests a way to establish a remote sensor data collection approach. Would you like to see the company's website?
• The translational scientist suggests that the new endpoint could be validated by just one short pre-clinical study
• The market access colleague suggests that a price point of 90% of the competitor, enabled by these ideas, would guarantee formulary listing

After your meeting with Team A, your plan is still your plan, but it now has a lot of people who have staked their claim for an 'I told you so' if it fails. You click Leave on the Zoom call more deflated than when you started.

After your meeting with Team 1, you have a Plan To Learn. Your plan is now the team's plan, and they're invested in ways to improve it. You have set up 10 people to use their individual perspectives to see further, to help each other see further. Having your regulatory colleague pivot from a yes/ no answer to a 'how' or a 'what if...' is not just an enabling step, it is an energising step.

Team 1 is interdependent as well as inter-disciplinary. Commercial has 'a seat at the table' in both meetings, but only in Team 1 is it a building role, a meaningful seat.

In most pharma companies, Team A is what we see. The perverse incentives in the silo structure lead to easy, slow 'no' answers. If Team 1 is what we want to see, we have to embrace the Plan to Learn. That meeting with Team 1 may not have been conclusive, but the next meeting will be exciting, no? If even one of the members' ideas pays off, your plan is enhanced in a way that can never happen in Team A. The principle of good answers quickly instead of more 'accurate' answers slowly is key - all ten need to hear each others' ideas and build, rather than see them as bad news for the trial protocol they just spent two months writing.

Team 1?is?what we want to see. Teams need to be set up to see further than any one of their members. Learning about opportunity cannot be about 1 amazing plan writer, but 1 great plan writer with a plan to harness 10 perspectives to see further.