Panel · Use case · Corporate Development

Pipeline Asset Ranking.

LivePrioritisation Panel

Rank these 11 pipeline assets for investment, against our criteria of unmet need, evidence plan and regulatory path.

Items11 pipeline assets

SeatsRegulatory, medical, evidence, ecosystem

ReaderPortfolio leads

Not askedA valuation

DepthStandard, four seats

Pipeline Asset Ranking is a ready-made use case for Corporate Development. It ships under the Prioritisation Panel template.

For corporate development 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 11 pipeline assets for investment, against our criteria of unmet need, evidence plan and regulatory path.

Who ranks

A pharma framework asks of a candidate whether it has the right target, safety, patient and commercial potential. The criteria here are three of those that a panel can speak to.

Seat	What it ranks from	Why it is at the table
Regulatory Strategist	The credibility of the regulatory path for each asset.	Agency guidance.
Global Medical Affairs Director	The unmet need and the clinical meaning of each asset’s expected effect.	Guidelines and clinical evidence.
Global Value & Evidence Lead	The strength of each evidence plan against what payers need.	Evidence plans.
Ecosystem Intelligence Orchestrator	The competitive position of each asset.	Public records.

What the run does

Base rate for every asset. Industry success rates give each asset the same starting point by phase. The ranking is about how each differs.^{1BIO, Informa Pharma Intelligence and QLS. Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011–2020. February 2021.}

Few criteria. Three criteria keep the exercise discriminating. Longer lists overlap and lose power.^{2Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014;13:419–431.}

No valuation. Ranking is not valuing. The report orders assets and leaves the money to the portfolio team.

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:

The three criteria capture what matters for the investment.
Asset information is current across all 11.
Assets of different phases can be ranked on one scale.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

Industry analysis of clinical development success rates, 2011–2020.^{1BIO, Informa Pharma Intelligence and QLS. Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011–2020. February 2021.}
Cook et al., five-dimensional framework, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014.^{2Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014;13:419–431.}

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

What gets flagged

Any asset ranked from sponsor materials alone, any criterion scored on a different scale for different assets, and any asset 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 does not value assets or allocate budget.

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] BIO, Informa Pharma Intelligence and QLS. Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011–2020. February 2021. Known from search results and secondary reports; the figures were not read.
[2] Cook, D. et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014;13:419–431. Known from the PubMed listing; not read.

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.