Keys to Executing a Successful Technology Transfer - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

Keys to Executing a Successful Technology Transfer
The authors highlight the need for a technology-transfer process that is efficient, cost-effective, and repeatable, stressing the importance of process understanding. Read this and other preferred organization articles in this special issue.


Pharmaceutical Technology
Volume 35, pp. s42-s46

This article is part of a special issue on Preferred Providers.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers conduct more technology transfers now than ever before, yet technology transfer remains far from a core competency in the industry today, according to a recent survey conducted by Tunnell Consulting. Looking at the technology-transfer practices of executives at 10 global pharmaceutical companies, the study found that most companies undertake more than 10 technology transfers per year—whether from development to commercial manufacturing or from one manufacturing site to another—and some execute many more. Yet despite the frequency of transfers, the survey results showed the following problems:

  • Corporate decision-makers make technology-transfer plans primarily on the basis of financial and marketing considerations, failing to take into account early enough in the decision-making process the effect that execution will have on the organization.
  • Senior management significantly underestimates the need for resources and scheduling because its members lack sufficient first-hand knowledge and input from the organization regarding the organizational requirements for supporting technology transfers at the sending and receiving sites, as well as for the numerous support functions that are integral to the process.
  • Once high-level decisions have been made, implementation is left in the hands of individual departments, functions, or sites with little, if any, high-level centralized oversight, control, or appropriate metrics.
  • The lack of early and effective coordination between the sending and receiving sites, or between development and manufacturing, is further complicated by the absence of clearly defined roles and responsibilities for individuals and teams, lack of open communications, and poor visibility of timelines, progress, and results.
  • The transfer runs into problems because a thorough and detailed assessment has not been conducted regarding the comparability between the sending and receiving sites' equipment, environments, and supply chains.
  • The participating organizations fail to clearly identify, define, and agree upon which standards and procedures will be followed while conducting transfers, including assurance that all required documentation will be completed in an accurate, timely, and compliant manner.
  • The organization fails to take into proper account the impact that technology transfers will have on functions, such as quality, regulatory, laboratory, and supply chain.
  • Poor process understanding, coupled with incomplete documentation (i.e., codification) of all the required process parameters, results in attempts to transfer products and processes not under a sufficient and defensible level of control, leading to poor manufacturability at the receiving site.

The adverse consequences of these common mistakes in the planning and implementation of technology transfer include budget and schedule overruns, disruption of both the sending and receiving organizations, compliance problems, excessive rejects and rework, slower time to market, and supply unreliability. In today's life-sciences business environment, companies can no longer afford such mistakes. They need a technology-transfer process that, like any process, is efficient, cost-effective, sustainable, and repeatable—a core competency that consistently produces maximum strategic impact. Although the components of such a comprehensive technology-transfer capability are many, they can be reduced to two essentials: an overarching technology-transfer framework and rigorous process understanding before transfer. Companies that achieve those two objectives will not only avoid the common mistakes in technology transfer, but also transform the process into a formidable competitive advantage.


ADVERTISEMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
|Monthly
| Weekly

Survey
FDASIA was signed into law two years ago. Where has the most progress been made in implementation?
Reducing drug shortages
Breakthrough designations
Protecting the supply chain
Expedited reviews of drug submissions
More stakeholder involvement
Reducing drug shortages
70%
Breakthrough designations
4%
Protecting the supply chain
17%
Expedited reviews of drug submissions
2%
More stakeholder involvement
7%
View Results
Eric Langerr Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerTargeting Different Off-Shore Destinations
Cynthia Challener, PhD Ingredients Insider Cynthia ChallenerAsymmetric Synthesis Continues to Advance
Jill Wechsler Regulatory Watch Jill Wechsler Data Integrity Key to GMP Compliance
Sean Milmo European Regulatory WatchSean MilmoExtending the Scope of Pharmacovigilance Comes at a Price
New FDA Team to Spur Modern Drug Manufacturing
From Generics to Supergenerics
CMOs and the Track-and-Trace Race: Are You Engaged Yet?
Ebola Outbreak Raises Ethical Issues
Better Comms Means a Fitter Future for Pharma, Part 2: Realizing the Benefits of Unified Communications
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here