Earlier this year, I was visiting a presentation by the Basel business development agency on the challenges of Medical Device Regulations (MDR) for the providers of health apps. There had been around 30-40 IT guys locally supporting pharma with the development of health-related digital solutions, some from agencies, some freelancers. What they all had in common were shocked faces at the end of the presentation. I was not really surprised. During many years I have now been involved in the development and realization of various digital tools and solutions in pharma, I got used to digital agencies’ naivety if not reluctance to deal with regulatory requirements. Sometimes there was not even basic knowledge about MDR and CSV. Guys, you really should know what an audit trail is! I frequently met a thinking that this ‘annoying, boring and painful stuff’ should stay with the client who is obliged to all those pharma regulations, where digital is not. You thought wrong! Let me summarize some general developments I claim to watch … So, no let’s calculate 1+1+1+1 = … there is a huge market for digital solutions in pharma, but companies more and more take for granted that vendors meet their high level expectations regarding regulatory requirements. This is not going to happen in the future. This happens now, and has happened already. I dare to predict that in 5 years ahead … You want to do digital business with pharma in the future? Then stop being reluctant and learn to love MDR and…

At least inside the pharma branch of industry I am working in, there clearly is a preference for iOS devices, iPhones and iPads. Everyone has at least one of those stylish tools in his pocket, if not in his or her hand most of the time. iOS devices are internal corporate if not even industry standard. Now, I am not going to start an ideological discussion today if this is good or bad, respectively which mobile platform would be the better one. In all pharma companies I was working with so far, iPhone is standard and many people really love it. They are used to it and enjoy it. Having an iPhone in your hands every day is absolutely normal and felt as a matter of course. And that is where the issue starts. Because iOS devices are used inside the company like a duck takes to water, they are often also unquestioned as the standard when it comes to developing innovative mobile apps for outside, e.g. for promotional use, for sharing information with target groups, or for communication with stakeholders and multipliers. Meaning, any mobile app for outside the company is inconsiderately expected to look and feel like an iOS app, to work and behave like an iOS app does, to be smoothly working inside an iOS environment, and to be developed by a digital agency selected for being strong with iOS apps, and and and … But actually, outside the pharma microenvironment, the use and usability of iOS devices is by far not given. In the “normal” world, there are dramatically more Android mobile devices in use. According to Gartner, in 2017 Android had a global market share of 86% compared to 14% for iOS. (other mobile platforms can factually be ignored) OK, you might say that your audience also has a high affinity for iOS. Yes, sure, might be. But even provided the ratio might be reverse, with more iOS devices owned than average, it will never be 100% and cannot just be taken as granted. In my case for example, one major audience for our promotional or medical apps are physicians. I dare to say that with physicians you will also find a much higher frequency of iPhones compared to the average population. But in all projects we were facing a considerable number of people which could not be reached by an iOS app. An with another pharma major target group, patients, there you anyhow have to consider the general Gartner figures. It is obvious that limiting your digital solution to iPhone/iPad … As a result people frequently realize quite late in their mobile app development, that yet an Android version is needed in addition. And this late change misses cost-reducing synergies you have when considering both versions early on. The solution is easy Don’t be prejudiced by blinkers, remove the iOS fences in your brain. And with mobile apps … consider versions for both key mobile platforms, iOS and Android, … as soon as possible in your project. Get rid of the limitation by being focused on a single mobile platform. And avoid the trap realizing later in your mobile app development, that yet another platform version is needed in addition. With this late change jeopardizing your project milestones as well as missing cost-reducing synergies you might have had when considering both versions early on. At least do an analysis of the mobile platforms used by your audience … to early identify the one used by 99% of them. Certainly provided that the target audience of your digital solution is such confined and has such a clear preference for a single platform. Alternatively consider handing out device+app … which we did in one of my projects targeting a very small group of users, “SAMS – saccade analysis made simple”, a training tool for medics and paramedics on recognizing oculomotor function deficits. This device+app package approach also has some challenges, but to be addresses separately. Not limiting yourself to any technology platform will be beneficial for your target group penetration … and your…

SAMS (“Saccade Analysis Made Simple”) is an educational app for clinicians on the identification of specific impairments of eye movements (oculomotor test), and helps to earlier diagnose underlying neurological diseases. The tablet-based app guides through systematic qualitative measurements of various eye movements done locally by a physician or nurse. Simultaneously, the app records a video of the patient’s eye movements, and the physician subsequently has the opportunity to share selected recordings with a remote expert for his review. The expert’s feedback is supporting the local physician in developing his skills in the recognition of multiple potential neurological disorders known to be behind eye movement manifestations. As project management lead, I have been responsible for specifying user requirements, application risk management, aligning with legal department for having a compliant set-up, coordinating KOLs involved, the developing agency and caring field force, ensuring continuous improvement, and a scale-up to additional countries. CLIENT:Actelion Specialty Care Global Business Unit(as an employee and member of)PROJECT TIME FRAME: November 2015 – June 2016 (development)June 2016 – EO 2019 (active in…

In 2013, I initiated and promoted the development and implementation of “eNova QuickAnswers”, a quick and easy access to standard product-related answers for marketing and medical information colleagues at Novartis. “QuickAnswers” was finally realized as search tool within eNova and as website widget which could be implemented on any intranet or Sharepoint site Last not least the team decided to additionally develop a QuickAnswers iOS app for internal use. I supported the team with migrating the QuickAnswers concept and functionality to the principles of an app. The result successfully passed user acceptance tests, Novartis risk assessment, and was rolled-out to the internal app store soon before due date. The eNova QickAnswers iPhone/iPad app was one of the very first Novartis-internal iOS apps, providing unique and mobile insights on real-world product behavior. CLIENT:Novartis Pharma(as a Novartis employee)PROJECT TIME FRAME: 2013 READ MORE…

You would be surprised (and shocked) by how many people use Google as the major or even sole information source for daily business. In the worst case for business-critical decisions. And many of those are actually convinced that Google serves their needs. The problem simply is that you never know what you do not know. OK … no bashing! … Google is not bad. Assumed that you always keep in mind what kind of tool you are working with and use it properly. Google suggests to give an answer, but factually it does not. Google only provides sources (= web pages) of answers. But there is a limitation with the ranked sorting of the Google results. The hits on top of the list neither necessarily give a reliable answer nor a comprehensive answer nor the right answer at all. The web page with the best answer (or the right one at all) can be hidden somewhere on page #5 or #11 of the results. And – let’s be honest – with many searches people do not go beyond page 1-2 of the Google results. This is no issue when a you are looking for a movie you would like to see with your girl friend, or the map of the zoo, or the true age of Lady Gaga. But it is bad for business and potentially threatening the existence of a company when decisions are based on superficial Google use. You give the responsibility for your business … to a biased ranking algorithm not under your control. Well, this constraint and menace is not new. But sometimes people take the bait to disregard, owing to a general tendency to concede time pressure, to oversimplify and to prefer quick answers instead of sound ones. But now, the well-known “soft” evidence once again has been proven by hard facts. A recent study by Nadja Hariri on the patented Google PageRank mechanism found that … Hariri’s conclusion: “users evaluate retrieved information in such a subjective way that search engine ranking cannot be in complete accordance with their views of relevance”. Search tools are simply far away from being able to equivalently replace human brains. While a decade has gone by, Hariri still is hooking up with Hawking et al. (1999) who stated that “the standard of document ranking produced by public web search engines is by no means state-of-the-art”. So, watch out! Do not trust search engine rankings. And take care that Google is not taking your business into his hands. P.S.: Please allow me to anticipate expected criticism. Could those results be biased by surrounding cultural conditions? The study was done at one location only. And – this frank note has to be allowed – at a location not expressly known for goodwill regarding the US including US-based services. Well, sure, some influence can never be completely excluded. But Hariris’s findings are support by a series of earlier studies. And, by the way, it is also in line with my own decent but extensive…

From time to time, the team I proudly belong to does some customer surveys to optimize our inhouse services. One request we consistently get is the need for a live online chat as extension of our customer support portfolio. This is an understandable wish, as the advantages of live support and communication by live chat are evident. Time for a testimony. Dear reader, I apologize if you are one of the sufferers and ask to kindly not take it personally, but to very honest … I usually switch the preinstalled text chat tools off. Why? Because they are just inefficient and get on my nerves. When it rains, but it pours. And on top of that this tiny little text chat window pops up with messages like “just to say hello” or “what are you doing?” There is one more fancy attitude of text chatters. “May I call you?” … …. …. Come on!!! Maybe I am utterly daft, but … To me a text chat window appears much more offensive than a phone call would ever do. I like people, and hearing someones voice is much less annoying than dry text messages on the screen. (at least for most voices) And I am always free to not pick up the phone in case it does not suit me … with a chat tool I do not really have this choice as the tool always shows that I am there. This suggests that I am available, and puts some mean subliminal pressure on me not to decline. So, in case you would like to call me. Just do it, please! I will either answer the phone, or call back ASAP. Yes, I am live available already at any time … by phone. Aaaahh… phone! Dear generation-Y-timers, this old-fashioned voice-thing, you remember? I can be reached by phone as easy as by text chat. But no one ever would call me during working time and asking “what are you doing at the moment?” OK, perhaps my boss could legitimately. But even he does not, because he knows that wasting my time is neither in mine nor in his interest. With phones people chat live since ages just by simply talking to each other. Well, let’s have a look at the core features of phone communication … Weird … somehow having a déjà-vu feeling … Heavily looks like that phone does already what chat claims to provide. So, is chat a redundant functionality? To my opinion it is even worse. Chat does not offer a dispensable functionality only, it offers even less functionality as phone at lower efficiency resulting in lower productivity. Only about 60% of chat requests I myself get at work do have a work-related objective and result in a solved task, compared to 95% finally productive phone calls. And the average attentiveness a text chat conversation needs for me is estimated in the range of 12-15 minutes, compared to average 5-6 minutes for a support phone call regarding a similar issue. I found some posts in German newsgroups on real life experienced duration of (business-service) chats and phone calls. They confirmed a strong tendency for text chats to take longer (at least doubled on average). This loss of time is inevitable as typing a text certainly takes longer than saying it. Plus the time it takes for submitting and displaying the message on the other side. More than that, our human brain is able to digest and work with a message while we hear it already. With chat you have to wait for the message to be finished, then it is transmitted, and then you start to read (and think). Phone is true interactive discussion. Text chat is playing Ping-Pong. But with phone you cannot do such fancy and auxiliary things like file and desktop sharing, I can already hear you say. Sure you can do those things with phone communication! Even better! As both hands are free for working with files and desktop (esp. when you are working with loudspeaker or a headset). Very similar to working with Skype1 e.g. (see below). And by the way, yes, you can do “conference calls” with a phone. Let’s directly compare live text chat with live phone … Text ChatVoice PhoneFunctionstext chat, live communication, short-term, individual guidancevoice2voice, live communication, short-term, individual guidanceAuxiliariesconference (tool dependent), file sharing (tool dependent), desktop sharing (tools dependent)conference, file sharing (with add. tool), desktop sharing (with add. tool)Productively works on …Blackberry,smartphone with QWERTZ iPad/iPhone with Bluetooth QWERTZPC, Apple, …Laptop, NetbookBlackberrysmartphoneiPad/iPhonePC, Apple, … (with Sykpe e.g.)Laptop, Netbook (with Sykpe e.g.)mobile phonelandline phoneConnection via …cable networkwireless networklandline phonecell phonecable networkwireless networkCommunication efficiency(range = 1* (snail-mail) to 6* (interactive talk))3*easylimited to text inputPing-Pong-communication5*easy and efficienttrue interactive real-time communicationclosest to personal talkProductivity factor(range = 1* to 6*, values based on individual, non-generalizable data)3*60% of sessions work-related10-15 minutes average session duration80% success ratequick connect, time loss by typing input and waiting lags, constricted input via keyboard/mouse/QWERTZ5*95% of sessions work-related5-6 minutes average session duration95% success ratequick connect, interactive support, need for an additional tool for file/desktop shareCosts (based on the Swiss industry average personnel costs per hour = € 37.05 (2009 data 1))calculated productivity factor = x / %-work-related / %-success-rate€ 7.70 per support chat (~5 support chats possible per hour)€ 16.00 per support chat incl. productivity factorplus internet connection fees depending on device used and individual contractsplus optional license costs for applications or application servicesno setup/device costs as device generally present€ 3.40 per support phone call (~11 support calls possible per hour)€ 3.80 per support phone call incl. productivity factorplus phone and/or internet connection fees depending on device used and individual contractsplus optional license costs for auxiliary applications or auxiliary application servicesno setup/device costs as device generally present Too much biased to your taste? Well, sorry, the facts just speak for themselves. As a logical consequence of these facts I clearly need to stick to the phone. But there is an auspicious eye. As I am strong advocate of multi-channel strategies, I have no issue with redundancy. Each of us should use the channel he personally prefers, even if it might be text chat and even if it might be less efficient. But also be still open for the channels other prefer! So, even I will start to occasionally switch my chat tools on for internal customer support. Because I want to be were our customers are. This is no caprice, this is customer-oriented behavior and tool-independent knowledge culture. But I will feel free to also share the knowledge how people on the other hand can reach me best. So, I tell clients asking for a live chat: Sure thing! … I have a live chat tool in place already where you can always instantly reach me!I call it phone. Do you also favor phone over text chat?Or quite the contrary?If you really prefer text chat, tell me why and try to convince me! 1 Comment: Skype is another story. In this post’s context it simplified fits to the phone category. But unfortunately in some companies it is blocked for dubious security reasons. 2…