Elizabeth Song (한 상미), Ph.D., ESSorant Consulting

 
(1) Background
 
All too often, I am asked the inevitable question of “How can I license my candidate to global pharmaceutical companies?“ Partially because of the broad nature of this question, I typically give the following explanation:
 
Every licensing “Opportunity” needs to be “graded”.  Let’s assume that the maximum potential score is 100 points, which can be broken down to 60 points for “Candidate,” 30 points for “Business Developer” and 10 points for “Packaging”. In this extremely competitive licensing market, every point matters and I would say the line in the sand for an Opportunity to be attractive enough and get noticed by in-licensors is around 85 points.  
 
As with everything in life, there is no perfect Candidate around the 60-point mark.   Most “good” Candidates are around 50 points for one reason or another, and only once in a while does one encounter an exceptional Candidate approaching 55 points (which will be snapped up almost immediately).   However, on the other end of the spectrum, there are also many Candidates below the 50-point mark, which struggle to get any attention.
 
Similarly, there is no Business Developer worth a full 30 points.  Even with many years of experience, a “seasoned” Business Developer can only be considered a 25-pointer, while beginners may be around 20 points.   Although I listed Packaging as a separate category, it’s all highly dependent on the Business Developer – and the seasoned ones can often prepare (nearly) perfect Packaging. 
 
Consequently, the only chance for your candidate to be licensed depends on whether you can reach the magic “85 point” mark with the collective contributions –50 points from a good Candidate, 25 points from a seasoned Business Developer along with 10 points from perfect Packaging. 
 
One can muddle around with the numbers a little bit to raise the overall points (for example, improving the Candidate to 55 points will allow less experienced Business Developers to pitch the Opportunity successfully).  Be wary though that the headroom in each category is not much and any one component by itself cannot rescue the entire operation.
 
In sum, a licensable Opportunity needs both a good Candidate and a seasoned Business Developer capable of preparing appropriate collaterals and carrying out productive licensing discussions. 
 
 
 (2) Candidate vs. Business Developer
 
While more points are attached to Candidate, it is surprisingly difficult to improve its points drastically at the time of licensing discussion. Pharmaceutical Development has a long cycle time.  History and accumulated results of past R&D almost dating back to the company’s inception frequently dictate what Candidate the company has now.     In short, companies often find themselves in a situation “We have what we have” at the time that they must consider out-licensing.
 
To this end, the only thing that can effectively improve the candidate is generating more “showcase” data in the form of clinical data.   However as powerful as it may be, clinical data takes many years of careful planning and execution.  It requires time and resources, and therefore can’t be generated in short order.   If so, the most effective way to improve an Opportunity in the short term is to concentrate on attaining Business Developers who can also improve Packaging.  
 
 
(3) Important Attributes to good (Korean) Business Developers
 
Since I exclusively trained in science and business outside of Korea, I tend to have the optics of a foreign Business Developer who will sit on the other side of the table evaluating Korean Opportunities for in-licensing.    While there are myriad of attributes for a good Business Developer, I would like to concentrate on the following two, which I consider particularly relevant to Korean Business Developers:
 
(a) Domain knowledge to understand the value of your Candidate
 
In ex-Korean companies, most Business Developers originate from the R & D department.   Many of them have Ph.D. degrees in the company’s chosen field (e.g., immunology, neurosciences, etc.) or MD degrees.  After their doctorate and post-doctorate training, they usually have been at a company’s R & D department for several years to a decade and are likely to be a Project Leader or Director.  
 
At this stage of their careers, they’ve been heavily involved in evaluating collaborative/licensing opportunities and managing Intellectual Property as a scientific lead.  Such exposure is the most common way that stellar scientists get interested in business development.
 
For aspiring R & D personnel becoming a Business Developer is a highly coveted opportunity and therefore competitive.  For companies, they are often very selective in drafting Business Developers amongst their R & D personnel considering the vital role that Business Developers play.
 
In sum, Business Developers are highly sophisticated scientists with deep domain knowledge, even if they are no longer applying their training in a direct manner.    Most importantly, owing to their rigorous training in scientific method and thinking, these Business Developers tend to be better at evaluating Candidates appropriately in both in and out licensing discussions.  
 
This understanding of “what one has” is crucial in setting the overall strategic direction, determining strategies, and formulating licensing terms.   Because they can fly solo without having to be accompanied by another scientist at licensing tables and can field both business and science-related discussions, they are even more valuable for smaller, more resource-strapped companies.
 
One of my observations is that aspiring Business Developers in Korea tend to be financiers and marketers.   And while these disciplines are important in sophisticated licensing discussions, it is less critical than actual domain knowledge, at least during the initial stage of the interactions. After all, plugging numbers into various formulas can calculate net present value or peak sale projections, and such skills can be easily taught.   However, building an appropriate model and understanding underlying assumptions based on what numbers are plugged in are much harder to come by.  
 
A senior executive of one of the largest Korean pharmaceutical companies has told me that it is next to impossible for them to draft a star scientist from R&D departments to business development: The scientists themselves are hesitant and research management is reluctant to let go of them.   
 
For an individual scientist, I would highly recommend considering becoming a Business Developer, as it is an extremely rewarding and interesting opportunity.  One is definitely not “giving up” on science, but is rather stepping into a career opportunity that allows you to combine science with other fascinating aspects of economics, logistics, project management and psychology.  Business Developers enable real world application of research and help it become a tangible opportunity that can impact society at large.   
 
For company management (including those from research), the important thing to remember is that companies have to be profitable.   It is not someone’s research boutique to foster academic research and companies will obviously try to maximize their return on investment.  To this end, it is important to have the person with the best pitching skills to present the Candidate.
 
(b) Communication skills including ability to read between the lines
 
This is one of the biggest challenges for all Business Developers, Korean and Foreign alike.  After all, very often, Business Developers with proficient English skills are still unable to catch all nuances within pharmaceutical licensing discussion measuring in millions and billions of dollars.  
 
Licensing discussions are often compared to a chess game where each party choreographs its moves carefully and anticipates the opponent’s strategy well ahead.  I also like comparing licensing discussions to the early stages of dating, where one will have continue upping the ante – reading in between the lines and trying to catch what is said and left unsaid by the other.   Unfortunately, such sensitivity is culturally driven and it can be difficult to hone this skill without having spent significant time in English-speaking business settings.
 
Furthermore, one of the ingrained habits of the foreign Business Developers is to think and formulate their ideas in their native languages and then convert them into English via quite rigid, literal translations. During this process, most of the subtleties and nuances are not conveyed, which creates many misunderstandings down the road. 
 
To make this point, I’ve included the English draft of this article at the end. While I first wrote the draft in English and then translated it into Korean, the reader may notice that the translations are not literal and may be extensively paraphrased.   By taking such liberties, I believe my Korean version will better convey my “intentions” originally gathered in English.   
 
Fortunately, there are number of Koreans (scientists in particular), who are trained in English-speaking countries.  In addition to the domain knowledge described above, better communication skills are vital assets that companies should take advantage of. 
 
 
(4) Closing thoughts
 
In addition to the above, there are also a number of other metrics that are important for a good Business Developer.    First and foremost, one would need to have an open-minded, collaborative attitude.   Licensing discussion does not end at the deal signing.  Alliance Management beyond the signing and during the deal period would be much more important, and make or break the eventual success of the deal.  To this end, the role of the Business Developer does not end at the signing of the licensing agreement. 
 
Due to the space constrains, I was not able to touch upon any aspects of Packaging.   Although Packaging does not directly improve the quality of the Candidate, it can help grab the attention of the in-licensor in a meaningful way and thereby improve the chance for the Candidate.   There are many considerations on how to best prepare the collaterals and how best to get in touch with various different potential out-licensors.
    
While cultivating a good Business Developer takes time, improving Packaging can be achieved in relatively short time frame through proper coaching.   Hence, in parallel with a long-range plan to train adept Business Developers, I believe effort extended to improving Packaging can also incrementally improve the Opportunity.
 
That said, the Candidate, which obviously takes an even longer time than the Business Developer to improve substantially, drives the ultimate value of the Opportunity.  Therefore, while it would be advisable to start implementing plans for improving upon three components, expect to reap rewards from each improvement on different scales and time horizons.      

	Importance/ Contribution	Potential for Improvement	Timeline
Packaging	10 %	Small	Short
Business Developer	30 %	Medium	Medium
Candidate	60 %	Large	Long