|Articles|August 1, 2011

New Survey Finds Life Sciences Companies Struggling to Accurately Forecast Spending for Clinical Studies

ClearTrial

announced the results of a new survey of life sciences professionals charged with forecasting and budgeting clinical studies at small, mid-sized, and Top 20 biopharmaceutical and medical device companies.  The survey, which is available for download at

http://info.cleartrial.com/budgeting-survey.html

, garnered 187 responses from managers and executives in clinical operations, outsourcing, finance, and project management representing 75 biopharmaceutical and medical device companies from the United States, Europe, and Japan.

The results of the survey clearly show that the life sciences industry continues to experience difficulty accurately predicting spending for its most costly area: clinical development. Almost half the survey respondents reported that their typical variance–from forecast to actual costs–for clinical studies was at least 11%, and was often greater. And one in five stated their cost variance was 16% or more. Not surprisingly, respondents demonstrated a marked lack of confidence in the accuracy of their study budgets, with only 21% stating they were “highly confident” in their budget forecasts.

Another notable gap was in planning efficiency. Fully 83% of respondents noted that they required at least one to two weeks to create a ballpark budget for a clinical study, while 50% said they required three weeks or more. And 62% of respondents reported requiring at least three weeks to roll up individual study budgets into a budget portfolio.

A key finding points to one possible explanation for this industry struggle to forecast accurately and efficiently. According to the survey, Microsoft Excel is the predominant method for clinical study forecasting and budgeting, being used by 57% of respondents.  This is in stark contrast to other industries, such as manufacturing or construction, which have long faced cost and resource pressures and which utilize planning software built around their industry’s unique requirements.

“The use of planning spreadsheets uncovered by the survey is at a level you would have seen in other industries 10 or 15 years ago,” observed Andrew Grygiel, Chief Marketing Officer for ClearTrial.  “The life sciences industry still lags far behind other industries in the use of purpose-built forecasting and budgeting software.  If the industry is truly serious about improving efficiency in clinical development, they will need to do more to improve the planning tools they use.”


Related to this article

© photon_photo - © photon_photo - stock.adobe.com
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
What Expanding AI Ecosystems Mean for Sponsor Complexity and Oversight
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, argues that CROs must act as orchestrators rather than aggregators—and that the real test of any AI ecosystem is whether it reduces sponsor coordination burden or just hands it back to them.
Where AI Governance in Clinical Development Falls Short
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, identifies three recurring failure modes in AI governance frameworks—and explains why responsible AI must be an ongoing operating discipline, not a one-time approval gate.