Panel · Use case · Innovation

Partnership Target Ranking.

LivePrioritisation Panel

Rank these 12 candidate partners for a co-development deal against our fit criteria.

Items12 candidate partners

SeatsEcosystem, compliance, regulatory, brand

ReaderBusiness development leads

Not askedA deal structure

DepthStandard, four seats

Partnership Target Ranking is a ready-made use case for Innovation. It ships under the Prioritisation Panel template.

For innovation leads. You get each seat's ranking, the aggregated list with a cut line, where the seats disagree and how stable the line is. Claims are cited or marked as gaps.

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

The decision

Rank these 12 candidate partners for a co-development deal against our fit criteria.

Who ranks

A partner is ranked on fit and on what can go wrong. Compliance and regulatory fit can remove a candidate that looks strong on strategy.

Seat	What it ranks from	Why it is at the table
Ecosystem Intelligence Orchestrator	Strategic fit, capabilities and the partner’s record from public sources.	Company disclosures and deal records.
Global Commercial Compliance Officer	Integrity, interaction rules and the partner’s compliance history.^{2European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice.}	The EFPIA Code and public enforcement records.
Regulatory Strategist	Regulatory track record and capacity to run the development.	Agency records.
Global Brand Lead	Commercial complementarity and geographic reach.	Market data.

What the run does

Fit criteria are stated first. The criteria and their scale are fixed before any partner is ranked. Partners are not scored from their own marketing alone.^{1Marsh, K. et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making: Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 2016;19(2):125–137.}

A knock-out is not averaged away. A partner that fails a compliance or integrity criterion is marked as failing and not offset by strong scores elsewhere.^{2European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice.}

Sensitivity. The report tests the cut line with commercial reach weighted more and with compliance weighted more.

Recommended length

Standard

Four angles weigh the list differently. Standard depth gives each a seat, with disagreement, value versus effort and sensitivity, in about four pages.

You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.

Assumptions the run makes

The run states the assumptions behind its criteria and its cut line, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this list:

Public sources describe each partner accurately.
The partner’s priorities match its stated strategy.
The 12 are the real candidates.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices, Report 2, on defining criteria and scales first.^{1Marsh, K. et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making: Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 2016;19(2):125–137.}
EFPIA Code of Practice on interactions and promotion.^{2European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice.}

The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.

What gets flagged

Any partner ranked from its own materials, any compliance concern, and any partner on which seats split widely.

What arrives

The question, criteria and items
The cut line and the top group
How each seat ranked
The aggregated ranking
Where the seats disagree
Value versus effort
Sensitivity of the cut line
Limits and what would change the ranking

What it will not do

The agreement is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. The criteria are fixed before ranking, and the cut line is a recommendation that the decider can move.

It is not due diligence on any partner and does not structure a deal.

It is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. Seats that share a base model are not independent confirmations of each other.

It does not compute a value-of-information analysis. That needs a decision model. It ranks by proxies and says so.

It does not set the weights for you. If none are supplied, the criteria are weighted equally and the report says so.

References

[1] Marsh, K. et al. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Care Decision Making: Emerging Good Practices: Report 2 of the ISPOR MCDA Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 2016;19(2):125–137. Abstract only.
[2] European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. EFPIA Code of Practice. The Code was confirmed in an earlier review of its PDF; this page link was not opened.

Links checked 9 October 2026

These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.

About the Panel service

Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.

To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.