Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Where Drugs Come From: By Country | Main | Comment of the Day: Outsourcing and Architecture »

November 10, 2010

An Outsourcing Blast

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

A reader from a large company sends this along - it's the text of a letter that he's wanted to send to C&E News, but since, as he puts it, "they don't publish anonymous letters and I still need to work", he decided that it would never see the light of day. I offered to help him out with that.

I've written many times on this blog about outsourcing, mainly on the theme of "it isn't going away, so we're going to have to learn to deal with it". And I've seen companies use it well, but there's no doubt that there are companies that are either (a) using it poorly, or (b) taking the idea further than it can go. Outsourcing to a cheaper country is not a magic wand, for sure - the problem is, perhaps, that to an accountant it might look like one. At any rate, here's the letter.

In a recent edition (25th Oct 2010 “The Grand Experiment”) you state that Merck &Co targets 25% external R&D and that AstraZeneca is striving for 40%. I recently talked to all the project managers which oversee our current collaborations. The stories of naivety, incompetence and missed deadlines by the outsource companies were legion. The managers I talked to mostly used in-house resource and expertise to paper over the cracks. Why?

When asked whether they had reported these problems up the chain of command, the answer was always no. The reasons?

1 “If we have four collaborations and mine is the only one reporting problems, which three project managers do you think will get a bonus?”

2 “They won’t believe me, they will just think I am trying to protect jobs here”.

3. “You can’t swim against the tide”.

4 “When it goes bad here, I might be able to get a job with the collaborator”.

5 “My next job will be outside chemistry as a project manager. The last thing I need is any negative vibes around this collaboration”.

6. “I want to be the out-sourcing manager when that is all that there is left here. Do you think I want any trouble to become visible”

So, as far as senior management know, it is all going very well.

Unfortunately I can’t attach my name and organization. I need a job too and telling the truth is not always that popular, as many out-sourcing managers will have experienced. . .

These are valid points, and any company that is using (or thinking of using) a significant amount of outsourcing should pay attention. Just as with internal efforts, Something Upper Management Wants can too easily turn into Something Upper Management Is Going To Do No Matter What. And with outsourcing, the problems can be both harder to detect and potentially more severe. Because what you don't want is Something Upper Management Will Be Told Is Going Great, if it's really not.

Comments (57) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets


COMMENTS

1. gyges on November 10, 2010 8:48 AM writes...

Meanwhile, over a Blighty, a situation has arisen which can be added to the list.

It is becoming apparent that some services supplied by companies in the UK are cheaper than those supplied by Chindia.

When this was pointed out to the monopsonist who buys the services, they responded by saying that they've got a whole dept who outsource to Chindia, what will happen to the dept if they source in the UK?

Permalink to Comment

2. Lacerta Bio on November 10, 2010 8:50 AM writes...

Ouch.

There is no question that outsourcing to *any* company in *any* country is not a panacea. Problems will crop up, irrespective of geography. You're right, Derek. Outsourcing is not a magic wand. As with any other process, it has to be managed properly.

Also, let's not forget the old maxim; You get what you pay for. There are many outsourcing companies around the world who perform outstanding work. They may not be the cheapest, however.

Permalink to Comment

3. Jack Vinson on November 10, 2010 9:02 AM writes...

This issue is bigger than outsourcing. I would wager that there are internal projects that are going all pear-shaped too, but upper management either doesn't know or isn't listening. Look at how many of those items had to do with FEAR. Fear doesn't appear just when it comes to outsourcing. It's there year-round, every day. Find a way past the fear, and many of these issues (internal and external) can change.

Permalink to Comment

4. processchemist on November 10, 2010 9:10 AM writes...

Working in the western outsourcing side of this business, I recall that about 10 years ago a GSKer, old friend of mine, attending a company summit about outsourcing somewhere in UK, heard that prices of some european contractors were matching the prices of the indian ones. Good news? Not so much. Since then many customers approached our shop waving an indian quotation and saying "We want this project from you, with your quality, with THIS price".
All the process (that accelerated in the last 5 years) lowered the median quality of the service of many western contractors. I heard that a well known and reputable player (in western europe), forced to accept projects at one half of the prices of a couple of years before, started delivering lower quality services.
Only in rare cases it's possible to deliver high quality at the cheapest price (mostly a technology issue). Usually, the less you pay, the less you get.

Permalink to Comment

5. Analytical Chemist on November 10, 2010 9:22 AM writes...

In my experience money really is being saved, but it's being saved at the expense of quality and timeline delays. Upper managment is unable to discern the quality reduction (or they don't care?) but the $$$ savings are tangible and obvious.

Oh, and that helps them get big bonuses, which are also tangible in their pockets. I once had a senior manager insist on going to a third world supplier, even though 1) it wasn't actually cheaper and 2) we knew it was of lower quality, because his managment held the expectation that it must be cheaper and he had his own job to protect.

Permalink to Comment

6. RB Woodweird on November 10, 2010 9:24 AM writes...

1. Stories are not data. Doubtless this writer has been unwillingly indoctrinated in the groupthink which is Six Sigma. Use those tools against the Man. This is a job for Mr. Pareto and Mr. Ishikawa.

2. Unscrewable pooch. This may be one.

3. Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick two. This is a fundamental law. Probably falls out as a corollary to one of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Permalink to Comment

7. You're Pfizered on November 10, 2010 9:49 AM writes...

Posts like this are what keeps me up at night. I've heard very similar stories within my company as well.

Permalink to Comment

8. Morten G on November 10, 2010 10:01 AM writes...

"Merck &Co targets 25% external R&D and that AstraZeneca is striving for 40%"

This means outsourcing? I thought that was how many projects they intended to license from biotechs. That doesn't leave much for internal development, does it?

Permalink to Comment

9. OldLabRat on November 10, 2010 10:03 AM writes...

Having worked at both internal pharma R&D and a CRO providing R&D services, there's a couple of items that really stand out in addition to the excellent previous comments:

1. Management isn't willing to quantitate CRO output quality and the bureaucracy necessary to manage it, since such a value could also be applied to their own jobs. One gets the value paid for, but this isn't an amount that can be put in spreadsheet like the FTE cost, thus the ROI can't be calculated. Thus, internal and outsourced results aren't comparable by accountants. This leads to more subjective decisions and lots of CYA by managers.

2. The competency variance in CROs is very wide, much wider than inside pharma today. The main difference is the larger number of employees at the lower end as the cuts over the last few years have really reduced the deadwood inside pharma. This means that very thorough due diligence is needed when contracting with a CRO, regardless of location. I'd suggest that taking the time to clearly describe expectations and work in exhaustive detail for both the science and communication. False assumptions about competency are frequently at the heart of poor CRO experiences.

Overall, managers that were/are able to effectively use internal resources will usually do the same with external ones. Unfortunately, with today's pharma abhorring risk on a regular basis, such managers are becoming rare.

End of novel, thanks for reading.

Permalink to Comment

10. Nick K on November 10, 2010 10:10 AM writes...

Once senior management starts not to listen to bad news you can be absolutely certain that the company is on the way out. The author of the letter would be well advised to sell any shares he has in his employer if he has any.

Permalink to Comment

11. Dole on November 10, 2010 10:31 AM writes...

What exactly is the endgame for all of this? These so called masters of the universe need to stop destroying everything they touch. The fact that the west has cut costs and they are still outsourcing to chindia is beyond belief.

If you outsource dont expect to come back and sell your drugs here. (I wish)

Permalink to Comment

12. pc on November 10, 2010 10:31 AM writes...

It's neither mysterious nor surprising at all. If everybody else outsources to China and/or India then we'll have to. "Herd mentality" that is. Problem is the real truth gets buried in a lot of noises.

#6: quite right about your point 3. We are a western CRO so usually we can't beat the number (price) from oriental shops. We can only win the projects by excelling on the other two. It's just the reality. But sometimes there are exceptions. We lately just finished one project. Our client asked for 3-4 week lead time. We got it done in a week. Even better, we beat the number from China and still make a profit.

Permalink to Comment

13. Sundowner on November 10, 2010 10:33 AM writes...

Another opinion from the CRO side in West Europe. I suppose it is a biased one, but it is my opinion.

In the last years we have seen an increasing number of outsourcing to Chindia companies, not only by Big Pharmas, but also by Mid size pharmas and biotech companies. The reason is always the same: Price.

Everybody here should take in account that quality is often, if not always, not perceived. It is a subjective experience, which can be supported by a spreadsheet in Excel taking some critical figures to evaluate ROI, but in the end if the figures, and specially price, do not support the perception of the customer, man, you are fired (or another word starting with f).

In my experience, the problem is that everybody wants everything as cheapest as possible. In the XXI century, with the low-cost model around, many clients perceive that quality comes for free. My own company has its own share of mistakes and failures, a success rate that we publish by the beginning of each year. But curiously the clients going to Chindia were not the ones affected by our mistakes, delays or failures. We generated five patents for a biotech company during one year and a half and they decided to move the chemistry to India because it was cheaper (they went to one of the finest CROs in India, however). Another client decided to move it because they perceived the chemistry we were doing was 'low value' and therefore we were too expensive (but we made no mistakes). A third client gave us a difficult problem and once solved they moved the production of the product (in hundreds of gram scale, not tons) to a company in China (it was cheaper). And so on.

And there is an additional perception which is hard to fight among outsourcing managers: 'In a western CRO, with X dollars I have one FTE. In China I have 2 or 3. Hey, I can have an army of chemists working there by the same price it would cost here a team of 5 people, and productivity will boost!'. But nobody has explained to them that management and coordination of bigger teams is more difficult and productivity is not a lineal function. Even the Army knows that an Special Forces team must be small, not division-size, because then effectivenes are lost. During the CPhI an old friend told me that Astra Zeneca had something like 2,000 chemists working in China. Problems were horrible, but it seems nobody cared because it was cheap.

To summarize: quality is usually not discussed by the outsourcing managers unless they have some technical background (biologists, chemists...) and it is hard to perceive and measure. Price is discussed because it is easy to compare and has a direct impact on the revenues/budget/accounting. The dollar commands the science, not the opposite.

Permalink to Comment

14. Wakjob on November 10, 2010 11:32 AM writes...

Companies ruined or almost ruined by India, Inc:

Adaptec - Indian CEO Subramanian Sundaresh fired.
AIG (signed outsourcing deal in 2007 in Europe with Accenture Indian frauds, collapsed in 2009)
AirBus (Qantas plane plunged 650 feet injuring passengers when its computer system written by India disengaged the auto-pilot).
Apple R&D CLOSED in India in 2006
Bell Labs (Arun Netravalli took over, closed, turned into a shopping mall)
Boeing Dreamliner ES software (written by HCL, banned by FAA)
Bristol-Myers-Squibb (Trade Secrets and documents stolen in U.S. by Indian national guest worker)
Caymas - Startup run by Indian CEO, French director of dev, Chinese tech lead. Closed after 5 years of sucking VC out of America.
ComAir crew system run by 100% Indian IT workers caused the 12/25/05 U.S. airport shutdown when they used a short int instead of a long int
Dell - call center (closed in India because Premji's conmen don't even know how to use telephones, let alone computers)
Delta call centers (closed in India because Premji's conmen don't even know how to use telephones, let alone computers)
Fannie Mae- Hired large numbers of Indians, had to be bailed out. Indian logic bomb creator found guilty.
GM - Was booming in 2006, signed $300 million outsourcing deal with Wipro that same year, went bankrupt 3 years later
HSBC ATMs (software taken over by Indians, failed in 2006)
Intel Whitefield processor project (cancelled, Indian staff canned)
Lehman (Spectramind software bought by Wipro, ruined, trashed by Indian programmers)
Microsoft - Employs over 35,000 H-1Bs. Stock used to be $100. Today it's lucky to be over $25. Not to mention that Vista thing.
MIT Media Lab Asia (canceled)
PeopleSoft (Taken over by Indians in 2000, collapsed).
Qantas - See AirBus above
Quark (Alukah Kamar CEO, fired, lost 60% of its customers to Adobe because Indian-written QuarkExpress 6 was a failure)
Rolls Royce (Sent aircraft engine work to India in 2006, engines delayed for Boeing 787, and failed on at least 2 Quantas planes in 2010).
Skype (Madhu Yarlagadda fired)
State of Indiana $867 billion FAILED IBM project, IBM being sued
State of Texas failed IBM project.
Sun Micro (Taken over by Indian and Chinese workers in 2001, collapsed, has to be sold off to Oracle).
United - call center (closed in India because Premji's conmen don't even know how to use telephones, let alone computers)
Virgin Atlantic (software written in India caused cloud IT failure)
World Bank (Indian fraudsters BANNED for 3 years because they stole data).

I could post the whole list here but I don't want to crash any servers.

Permalink to Comment

15. canchem on November 10, 2010 11:40 AM writes...

A shop I spent some time in was a North American CRO working primarily with a mid-large pharma. There were very clear rubrics in place to identify quality and productivity, and our company consistently lead all CRO's in the world by a wide margin. We certainly weren't the cheapest option out there, but when our contract came up it got renewed with more FTE's.

There are companies out there who are paying attention, and are still aspiring for quality over cost. Pity the publicly-traded large ones don't have much of this mentality.

Permalink to Comment

16. Doglotion on November 10, 2010 12:58 PM writes...

Good points. I'd observe there are a couple different issues here - outsourcing to CROs and in-licensing/collaboration between pharma and biotech. The former is a research service arrangement where pharma pays a CRO to carry out specific tasks. The latter is an IP transfer from biotech to pharma, typically involving a research collaboration as part of a license agreement. There are potential problems and benefits associated with each one, but they are different beasts.

Permalink to Comment

17. alig on November 10, 2010 1:15 PM writes...

I have worked with chemistry CROs in America, Western Europe, India and China. They have different cultures and expertise. A Western FTE is ~3-4 times the cost of a Chindian FTE, so they need to justify their higher cost with better performance. A good outsourcing manager knows how to use each and get the best performance from each. It requires lots of active management. If you are unwilling or unable to devote time to managing your outsourced projects, they will fail. The mistake I have seen in large pharma is that they do not put enough internal staff dedicated to managing their outsourced chemists. The mixed internal/external model can work, but requires people committed to making it work.

Permalink to Comment

18. anchor on November 10, 2010 1:33 PM writes...

# Wakjob...you forgot mention that Haiti earthquake, Indonesian volcanic ash spew and the recent defeat of democrats in the just concluded election among other issues to Indian software industries. What a baloney!.

Permalink to Comment

19. AlChemist on November 10, 2010 2:01 PM writes...

quality and time were issues, on two occassions in house people completed the project in less time than the outsourced company, and they still wanted the money for no delivery

Permalink to Comment

20. HelicalZz on November 10, 2010 2:42 PM writes...

I do this sort of outsource management. I have never been smart enough to keep my mouth shut about anything.

Those that matter, tend to appreciate it.

Zz

Permalink to Comment

21. polyene on November 10, 2010 3:10 PM writes...

Use an American CRO that uses a hybrid model mixing Eastern chemists (within the CRO for everyday chemistry) and western chemists (for the more challenging chemistry and project mangement, slave driving techniques)

Permalink to Comment

22. Anonymous on November 10, 2010 3:21 PM writes...

You neglect to mention the carnage that these CROs are creating with lower environmental and safety standards. We were shocked to find out how many of our CRO scientists had been hospitalised in just one year, but our management weren't interested. As long as we told the CRO that something was potentially dangerous it was OK to give it to them, even if we wouldn't do it ourselves.

Permalink to Comment

23. Anon anon anon on November 10, 2010 4:29 PM writes...

A repeated statement in the comments above is that, while quality is difficult to measure, price is easy so decisions get made on price.

What kind of quantitative measures of quality have people seen in use? Time might be one but I'm sure there are others out there.

Permalink to Comment

24. GreedyCynicalSelfInterested on November 10, 2010 4:44 PM writes...

Since I have no job to lose and will never work in chemistry again, I can say what I want. : D

You gloss over some important issues:

1. Companies are run for the benefit of upper management and upper management cares mostly about bonuses and their next promotion or job.

2. The issue of it being cheaper to outsource is just a red herring. Outsourcing blame is the main motivation. If something does not get done properly, the manager can always blame those sleazy foreigners.

3. No. 22 hits on another critical and unspoken reason for outsourcing. You can outsource your accidents. Whether it is Bhopal or CRO scientists in this country getting sick or hospitalized, who in the outsourcing company really cares? They can just find someone else to do it.

4. Another reason is for competition with expensive Western labor with all their health insurance and expensive safety rules. If you can keep people in a constant state of fear, you can make them work harder and longer. Plus, you can fire anyone who is over 40 years old. They can either go on welfare, if European, or they can drive a courtesy bus if American.

5. Upper management gets to take exotic vacations in far away lands.

Permalink to Comment

25. DrSnowboard on November 10, 2010 5:27 PM writes...

Interesting tales here.
In some respects, outsourced chemistry is the new combichem. A promise of a shortcut to increased 'productivity' ie expressed as numbers , that management and financial providers can 'understand' ie parrot and achieve their objectives/ bonus by.

The question becomes, how do you communicate the impact of 'quality' or experience on a process that has a timescale of 12 years to market and for the most part is a lottery? An explanation that will work with VC funds, pharma execs, shareholders would be a bonus...

Permalink to Comment

26. k on November 10, 2010 6:09 PM writes...

Often, outsourcing in Asia (Chindia, Philippines, etc.) means people in Western countries get to clean up the messes, increasing costs by duplication of effort at minimum. Manglement at our place is finally beginning to see what we peons experience on a daily basis. Whether or not anything will be done to improve the situation remains to be seen.

Permalink to Comment

27. Jose on November 10, 2010 6:52 PM writes...

I find it ironic that so many pharma sites who hired hotshot architects to design labspaces that foster as much personal interaction as possible, are now pumping the virtues of collaborations across 10 time zones.

Permalink to Comment

28. jackass on November 10, 2010 7:04 PM writes...

"Obama is in India today.........visiting our jobs." -David Letterman (11-8-10).

On a serious note, globalization is killing the middle class, and killing the science in this country. Check out the book "Race to the bottom". Tonelson makes a forceful and engaging argument that globalization, with its attendant rush by multinational corporations to cheaper sources of labor, has been partially responsible for what he sees as a shift from high-wage to low-wage industries in the U.S. Our corporations are dumping our highest paying jobs overseas and/or importing Third World workers to do them (like Indian programmers). The result is a slowly sinking standard of living.

If a large corporation moves jobs overseas, then we should make them pay higher taxes to help pay for the unemployment for the people that lost their jobs. If they move their headquarters overseas, then a tariff should be placed on the items or services they sell.

The last company I worked for laid off all of there internal chemists and outsourced to Chindia. While I was there, we were still getting compounds in an unactive scaffold months later. With the mass layoffs of good scientists and the gloomy outlook for chemists in the US, we are killing the science in this country. I see gloom and doom.

Permalink to Comment

29. inthethick on November 10, 2010 7:13 PM writes...

A big CRO that I know just announced world-wide layoffs and cut backs.

A few days later, top management held a special meeting in China to assure staff that not only would China be spared any pain, but they had massive expansion plans, and that creative ways would be found to get around any announced salary/bonus freezes.

However, the main (stated) reason for all this was due to perceived growth potential in China. Not necessarily the cost advantage.

And there could be some truth to that. China has about 4x the population of the USA. That's a big potential customer base, and the growth potential appears to greatly exceed the West.

Like it or not, drug companies whose discovery and production is local will have an advantage competing for those future customers. Drug companies and the supporting industry knows this very well, and they are realigning themselves accordingly.

Permalink to Comment

30. Whackedjob on November 10, 2010 8:00 PM writes...

Outsourcing is a great tool, but it is being applied incorrectly by US manufacturing. Outsourcing was originally conceived to be a method to provide temporary, specialize, or contractual labor source for a fixed period of time, to prevent the hiring of labor (and addition of fixed cost facilities) which would likely be let go when the project was complete (the Y2K bug comes to mind). Any business major should be able to surmise that this "convenience" of outsourcing comes at an elevated cost (or decreased profit margin). The outsourcing company has to cover their costs, make a profit, and their will be additional costs associated with travel, management, and shipping.

So, big pharma has now tried to off-shore and outsource simultaneously, believing that moving to lower cost center locations will cover the higher costs associated with outsourcing. This is not the case. It has now become obvious the biggest source of waste was not research scientists, but sales/management portion (which is still resides mainly in the US).

Furthermore, the metric used by accountants to judge outsourcing vendors is compounds provided, but it should instead be patents granted, novel i.p. gained, and progress towards filling a pipeline. Most pharma scientists can tell good vs. bad outsourcing vendors very quickly, but it is difficult to convince accountants on a quarter per quarter basis of the value of a good outsourcing relationship. The scientific management should demand programs both internally and outsourced that meet the goal of filling a pipeline with good drug candidates. They should not bend to execs who force partnerships with companies that can't deliver real i.p., but fill library quotas.

Permalink to Comment

31. frequent visitor on November 10, 2010 8:15 PM writes...

What I still don't understand is beyond cost, how many times has a drug been developed that has gained approval from FDA, EU, and JP from the outsourcing of the entire development to India or China?

I am thinking only time will tell.


Permalink to Comment

32. See Arr Oh on November 10, 2010 8:29 PM writes...

I work in a small North American CRO that offers services to pharma, biotech, and materials companies. When a compound leaves our facility, it does so with HPLC, NMR, mp, MS, LC retention times, the works.

I recently opened a package from a less-stringent CRO. Purity spec? "99% by TLC"

~fin~

Permalink to Comment

33. Esteban on November 10, 2010 10:35 PM writes...

Motivations #1-#6 ring true based on my experience. When I was in big pharma, we learned before long that the only response our management will ever give to a complaint of "this isn't working" when our Chindia CROs weren't delivering was "make it work". We of course made it work by doing the work ourselves, but not usually complaining about it to our management, since another thing we'd learned bwas that complainers get promoted up the next-to-be-fired list.

Permalink to Comment

34. partial agonist on November 11, 2010 9:08 AM writes...

At the beginnings of the outsorcing boom I am told that for your dollar you could get as much as 10 China/India FTEs for one USA FTE. This number has steadily dwindled, and an outsourcing person I talked to at a conference a few days ago said the cost number is now at around 3 China/India FTEs for one USA FTE.

There seems to be no reason why this number won't continue to fall. Given the disadvantages, where is the tipping point ratio you need to gain value? 2.5? 2? 1.5?

This seems like a problem that will correct itself eventually, though lots of US chemists will be out of work permanently and re-oriented into other fields before it does.

Permalink to Comment

35. processchemist on November 11, 2010 9:17 AM writes...

@34

5/1 in 2005. 3/1 now. For a linear trend we are 5.7 years away from parity. But in economy trends are linear?

Permalink to Comment

36. milkshake on November 11, 2010 9:33 AM writes...

I have a process friend who was on the receiving end of a custom synthesis project contracted out to China. The intermediate came with delays of several weeks and contained 10% of water by weight. Since the next step was transmetalation, he had to dry and re-distill all the stuff on scale, and do Karl Fisher titrations - which took him another few days, and he then he had to explain everything to the manager who so did not want to hear about it. (Because they had this discussion about contracting the material and my friend wanted to use a company in US, and the quoted price difference was something like 25%)

Permalink to Comment

37. Wonk on November 11, 2010 9:43 AM writes...

While this post relates to R&D, I wonder whether parallels exist with the move to outsource manufacturing to "Chindia." Particularly, are the cost savings illusory and could executives be keeping quiet about quality problems or inefficiencies for fear of rocking the boat?

Permalink to Comment

38. Hasufin on November 11, 2010 10:50 AM writes...

In my experience, companies seldom want to put in the effort to make outsourcing work. They want to throw money at a problem until it goes away. Usually, the money goes away and the problem doesn't.

The assumption is usually "salaries are lower in India/Thailand/The Philippines/Eastern Europe, therefore we can pay less money for the same number of equally skilled people and so we'll be saving money."

This assumption is correct. Well, mostly. You *can* get a programmer or chemist for a lower salary. It's certainly possible.

BUT it's not that simple.

As #13 rightly apprehends, managing a larger group has greater costs. Managing a larger group, over which the company does not exercise direct control, in another country, and for which an on-site manager must be employed... has far greater costs. In fact, usually the costs of managing a outsourced resource eat up any savings which result from hiring in a lower-cost area.

But that's not where outsourcing is made or broken. That happens in business processes and training. As I mentioned earlier, most companies want to throw money at it until the problem goes away. What they DON'T want to do is be involved int he solution. They'd rather simply outsource the risks and blame those foreigners for the failure. And, of course, the outsourcing company isn't involved in the solution: to them it's just another contract, and they shuffle people from contract to contract all the time.
To get true value from outsourcing, it's necessary to spend time and money - lots of time and money - formalizing and simplifying business processes and documentation such that critical business elements are understood well enough to be safely handed off to another company.

Interestingly enough, once the processes are ready to be handed off, they're invariably simpler and more efficient than they were before - and it is here that a company will usually see the greatest savings from outsourcing; in fact, there have been some successes with "insourcing", in which the business processes are prepared as if they were to be outsourced, but are then handled in-house.

Permalink to Comment

39. MIMD on November 11, 2010 11:56 AM writes...

My personal 2005 take on CRO's.

I'm a white American male with an advanced degree, so maybe that was the real problem.

Permalink to Comment

40. Rudy Baum on November 11, 2010 1:17 PM writes...

The letter was sent to C&EN, and it reached my desk this morning. Because the letter writer identified him/herself to me--which means it is not an anonymous letter--I decided to publish it with the identifier appended to the letter: Senior medicinal chemist, Largepharma. It will appear in an upcoming issue of C&EN.

Permalink to Comment

41. GreedyCynicalSelfInterested on November 11, 2010 3:21 PM writes...

@39: Since you are a white American male with an advanced degree, no one cares about you or wants to hire you.

That's the reality in this diversity-worshipping age.

Now go drive a truck. They're always hiring qualified drivers.

Permalink to Comment

42. Taskolight on November 11, 2010 4:09 PM writes...

"I'm a white American male with an advanced degree, so maybe that was the real problem."

SHHHHH! Only Indians and Chinese get to complain about racism.

I could post the names of twenty US companies where 95% of the R&D hires are Chinese or Indian.

Almost all major Pharma companies hire h1-b visa human resources people to do their illegal -racist- hiring. As if there is a shortage of human resources people in this country?

Considering India is one of the most racist countries in the world, it's obvious why things have gotten the way they are.

Truck driving or Bartender are good solid alternatives.

Permalink to Comment

43. oruvan on November 11, 2010 6:33 PM writes...

all those who are making comments about Indian and chinese, put a sock on it will you?

The decision to outsource the job was made, I can assure you, by your favourite all-american, (white/black/wahtever) CEO. I can assure you that he never cared much about anything beyond the bonus the board will give him next year.

Oh, I will also add that the CEO was 'advised' by one of the all-american/white/whatnot 'business consulting companies (Boston Consulting, Deloitee, Mckinsey, Accenture) where the suites, I can assure you again, are *not* Chindian.

So there.

Oh Wakjob,PeopleSoft was bought out and ground into ground by your Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. Did now know that good old Larry was Indian.

Permalink to Comment

44. Advantium on November 11, 2010 7:27 PM writes...

I used to work in a large pharma in the US. The fact that big pharma is outsourcing to India and China is due to the following reasons
1. The Chinese and Indian CRO's give much more bang for the buck. Our company runs 3 8 hour shifts to deliver the products in a shorter time than most western CRO's
2. Science is equally good if not better. Most Americans like Derek just want to manage projects and sit on their fat asses all day. They are not interested in doing basic research.
3. American Scientists lack basic science knowledge. Theyre poorly read and most of them can hardly understand scientific concepts
4. The cutting edge of Science is in biotechs - most of the people working in the R&D divisions are Asians. Most managers in biotechs are washed up burnouts
5. Even Obama says that american school kids needs to work harder otherwise the US will cease to be an industrialised country.

Permalink to Comment

45. Eka-silicon on November 11, 2010 7:39 PM writes...

"It will appear in an upcoming issue of C&EN."

Three cheers for Rudy- well done, sir!

Permalink to Comment

46. Mao inhibitor on November 11, 2010 9:22 PM writes...

#44

If you are not some simian sockpuppet, then you've done a good job of stereotyping.

Permalink to Comment

47. chemist on November 12, 2010 12:36 AM writes...

This discussion has been going on for a while. The obvious reason for outsourcing is for cutting cost. If it is more expensive to do business overseas, then what is the reason to outsource these good pay jobs to China and India. The whole industry is facing a dilema and no one knows how to solve this crisis. Just look at the recent layoff, you may wonder why every company is in the same situation. In order to keep the business running, all the companies need to get things done but at a lower cost. The old model does not work anymore. It is a risky and low return business. No one knows how to turn things around. It is to cut money than to make money. Or it is to lose money than to make money. Lowering the cost at least is an optinon. Having saind this, it is still no guarantee this is going to work. In the end the whole R&D might be shifted to other countries. There are not many other good options left. There are many disvantages in term of outsourcing such as unguaranteed quality, delay of result etc. Overall all the speed might be slower. But since making a drug typically takes more than 8 years. A few more months longer does not mean that much for a project as a whole.
I am also trying to set up a CRO company but with different services. I just want to consult these big pharmas about what kinds of work they can outsource. I will set up a marketing team in India which is composed of 100 people or so. If this first try is successful, then I will expand my business to eastern Europe, latin America and northeast Asia. The advange side is I will have an office on shore so I could communicate with both customers and my employee in time and conveniently. As soon as my business takes off, I will hire more people locally because it might be easier to manage. But my question is: is this the right thing to do? This business doesn't cost that much. But I will spend lots of time and efforts to manage this business. Right now I am thinking to hire a few people with management expereince and with business education background. Since this is a sort of startup company, the salary might not be that great but will be comparabe to their peers based on real buying power. There might be aditional benefits such as paid holiday, vacation, medical coverage, stock option and even paid sick leave. The 401(K) might not be matched at this moment, but every employee could contribute the maximum amound set by IRS. This service will be provided by a third party. Depending on the business, the new hires have a great potential for career development. If the whole market is good, even if the educcation fee might be reimbursed as loon as the study is job related.

Permalink to Comment

48. CRO on November 12, 2010 2:09 AM writes...

One point to mention is that of cost, Big Pharma pay very little for outsourcing deals, if you want quality you pay for it. If you do not pay then you get Indian /China outsourcing.
Simple economics - you get what you pay for.

Permalink to Comment

49. malcolml1 on November 12, 2010 10:28 AM writes...

OK guys, so what has to happen to change the situation so that many of you highly qualified research scientists stay employed?
Somehow you need to become competitive.
You cannot blame the Dilbertian CEOs for all your woes, so what has to change?
Do we have to wait for salary levels to equiliberate between the US and Chindia?
IF NOT WHAT?

Permalink to Comment

50. dole on November 12, 2010 12:37 PM writes...

Its very simple malcolm1: if you outsource jobs and destroy your own middle class, then if you want to sell your drugs back here you get punitively taxed.

Permalink to Comment

51. JasonP on November 12, 2010 8:05 PM writes...

Taxes? Good luck with that with today's Republicans. The entire deck is stacked against Americans in today's world. We're the big loosers in globalization. Hope you like your cheap products!

Permalink to Comment

52. ex-Mrk on November 12, 2010 8:15 PM writes...

#49 malcolm1 writes:

You cannot blame the Dilbertian CEOs for all your woes

Sure you can, they and their minions. Like hires like, incompetence spreads through company leadership like a cancer, mismanagement becomes the rule rather than the exception.

Permalink to Comment

53. jackass on November 14, 2010 10:36 AM writes...

What also has to be taken in consideration, besides the advantages/disadvantages in terms of cost, is the damage done to chemistry in the US. How many potential/future R.B. Woodwards have been discouraged by the non-existant job prospects in chemistry, and therefore have chosen a different field?

Permalink to Comment

54. oruvan on November 14, 2010 11:55 PM writes...

#49 malcolm1 writes:

You cannot blame the Dilbertian CEOs for all your woes

OH Yeah? WHY NOT, Malcolm, WHY NOT?

Oh I get it. why do that when you can blame, Chindians, immigrants, Tem forreners, what not, RIGHT?


Permalink to Comment

55. JAB on November 29, 2010 11:51 AM writes...

Our anonymous friend succeeded in getting C&EN to publish the letter anonymously, no doubt through Derek's intercession.....

Permalink to Comment

56. Napoleon Piechota on August 18, 2012 9:56 AM writes...

Thank you, I have just been searching for information about this subject for a long time and yours is the greatest I have came upon till now. However, what about the conclusion? Are you positive about the supply?

Permalink to Comment

57. passby on April 3, 2014 5:36 PM writes...

I saw a lot of complaints from chemists who lost their jobs, and some did point out the cons of CRO service in Chindia, but did not see the solutions for themselves (how to get a new job against the tide) and for the pharma (if outsourcing is decided from upper management, how to get most out of outsourcing).

Most comments talked about the management of the outsourcing projects, but actually, choosing the suitable CRO is the most important part, which needs lots of effort to set up the evaluation system to predict their future performance, could includes massive details.

It has been 4 years since this topic posted, is there any change to the outsourcing situation?

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Molecular Printing of Drug Molecules. Say What?
Pfizer Walks Again By Night
Gitcher SF5 Groups Right Here
Changing A Broken Science System
One and Done
The Latest Protein-Protein Compounds
Professor Fukuyama's Solvent Peaks
Novartis Gets Out of RNAi