Somebody explain latest PTS re-org?

I'm outside of PTS, but I've just heard of the lates re-org hitting PTS.

Did I hear correctly, that the line extension group of PTS is going to be transferred to the Discovery group?

Huh? Why in the world would the part of PTS that's at the very end of the product development life cycle be moved under Discovery?

Please explain this to me. I only have a PhD in Pharmacology - not organogramology.

There's actually a coordinated, integrated strategic plan?

Originally Posted by Mystified

I'm outside of PTS, but I've just heard of the lates re-org hitting PTS.

Did I hear correctly, that the line extension group of PTS is going to be transferred to the Discovery group?

Huh? Why in the world would the part of PTS that's at the very end of the product development life cycle be moved under Discovery?

Please explain this to me. I only have a PhD in Pharmacology - not organogramology.

What line extension group? Do you mean 2nd Gen? Sounds implausible to me.

Originally Posted by Mystified

I'm outside of PTS, but I've just heard of the lates re-org hitting PTS.

Did I hear correctly, that the line extension group of PTS is going to be transferred to the Discovery group?

Huh? Why in the world would the part of PTS that's at the very end of the product development life cycle be moved under Discovery?

Please explain this to me. I only have a PhD in Pharmacology - not organogramology.

Please give more details. There is a move of 30 people from product development groups (FPA, Second Gen, IPD, EDG etc) to an Emerging Markets product development group. That makes business sense, the suggestion above does not.

How do you even define a "re-org" in this mess of a company? There never seems to be an organization in place long enough to reorganize it. This company is an absolute joke.

Originally Posted by Basedonfacts

Please give more details. There is a move of 30 people from product development groups (FPA, Second Gen, IPD, EDG etc) to an Emerging Markets product development group. That makes business sense, the suggestion above does not.

The emerging markets product R&D division reports up to PV - who heads Discovery.

It does not report through JB - who heads the Development functions.

Hence the peculiar situation that a product development group essentially focused on launching generic-like products in emerging markets is actually part of Discovery and not Development.

Hopefully this makes sense to someone.

nothing in JB's world makes any sense

Originally Posted by Anonymous

nothing in JB's world makes any sense

At least he likes bottlecaps. https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...aldoni%3Fcf%3D

Word out of Oncology R&D is that big cuts coming to the DPU's. Anyone know of any specifics?

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Word out of Oncology R&D is that big cuts coming to the DPU's. Anyone know of any specifics?

It is well known that the DPU 3 year review happened this summer. Some DPU's will go away and some new ones created. We are told that spending was to be constant, so cost savings were not a driver - that will be seen in the annual accounts and the actual R&D spend for those of you who are cynics.
I would be surprised by Oncology since it is an area the company has targeted for growth. We should find out in the next month or two.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

The emerging markets product R&D division reports up to PV - who heads Discovery.

It does not report through JB - who heads the Development functions.

Hence the peculiar situation that a product development group essentially focused on launching generic-like products in emerging markets is actually part of Discovery and not Development.

Hopefully this makes sense to someone.

It makes sense from an accountability perspective. Also they will be filing in emerging markets whereas FP&A is still US/Europe/japan centered. It is "odd" that it reports, ultimately, to a Discovery/Clinical group (Patrick Vallance overseas not just discovery) but that really doesn`t matter since there are layers of management in between him and this group.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

It is well known that the DPU 3 year review happened this summer. Some DPU's will go away and some new ones created. We are told that spending was to be constant, so cost savings were not a driver - that will be seen in the annual accounts and the actual R&D spend for those of you who are cynics.
I would be surprised by Oncology since it is an area the company has targeted for growth. We should find out in the next month or two.

Wise up.
Wake up.
Get real.

"Spending to be constant" means no increase in allocated funds from year to year. And so, any increases in costs, including salaries, must be squeezed out of the same amount of money allocated as the year before. The end result is a decrease in net, effective spending on R&D.

Translation----need to save money, whereever, however, in areas such being more efficient with fewer people (even without "DPU adjustments"), conducting fewer, smaller clinical trials, etc.

The "invisible bleeding attrition" in GSK R&D that has been going on now for several years continues.

I'm in an affected DPU as well, running around like crazy trying to tie up loose ends and figure out what happens next. Just found out on wednesday. Quite stressful.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Wise up.
Wake up.
Get real.

"Spending to be constant" means no increase in allocated funds from year to year. And so, any increases in costs, including salaries, must be squeezed out of the same amount of money allocated as the year before. The end result is a decrease in net, effective spending on R&D.

Translation----need to save money, whereever, however, in areas such being more efficient with fewer people (even without "DPU adjustments"), conducting fewer, smaller clinical trials, etc.

The "invisible bleeding attrition" in GSK R&D that has been going on now for several years continues.

I agree that in real terms it might squeeze a little although when they said constant I recall some mention of an allowance for salaries. We can easily check it out by comparing R&D spend from one year to the next. At least it isn`t a Pfizer situation where 30% of R&D spending is cut. Also great strides have been made to save money on infrastructure - just consolidating all RTP people (except Stiefel) to Moore Drive will save somewhere like $25 million. There are downsides to the relocation, but I would rather save $25 million there than through staff. So not all budget cuts (even if inflation inflicted) mean job losses.

Reorganizing DPU's makes sense - you want to focus on where you can get the best chance of a profitable product. I understand it being stressful for those affected. Lets see what actually happens. There are plenty of people on here who predict doom and gloom and are subsequently proven wrong - but they never admit that and just move on to the next doomsday prediction. Abit like saying the time is 11 o'clock - you will be right once every 24 hours!

Originally Posted by Basedonfacts

I agree that in real terms it might squeeze a little although when they said constant I recall some mention of an allowance for salaries. We can easily check it out by comparing R&D spend from one year to the next. At least it isn`t a Pfizer situation where 30% of R&D spending is cut. Also great strides have been made to save money on infrastructure - just consolidating all RTP people (except Stiefel) to Moore Drive will save somewhere like $25 million. There are downsides to the relocation, but I would rather save $25 million there than through staff. So not all budget cuts (even if inflation inflicted) mean job losses.

Reorganizing DPU's makes sense - you want to focus on where you can get the best chance of a profitable product. I understand it being stressful for those affected. Lets see what actually happens. There are plenty of people on here who predict doom and gloom and are subsequently proven wrong - but they never admit that and just move on to the next doomsday prediction. Abit like saying the time is 11 o'clock - you will be right once every 24 hours!

You miss the point, believing announcements and pronouncements management and communications would advocate.

The small, hidden, attritions that are not announced, seldom admitted, hardly acknowledged, add up to real resources & funding. Their ongoing and continual bleeding within R&D are seen in many places if you are willing to look, to have open eyes. They are absolutely demoralziing with negative impact on productivity. Many, many people are looking over their shoulders, waiting, wondering when they will be tapped on the shoulder to hear "it's your turn".

At the same time, much of the "redeployment" in the ever changing & redoing of DPUs (which are so successful !!!) will likely go into new speculative, high risk, academic (eg mostly impractical) investigative initiatives. Most should not be undertaken at their current stages of understanding, will not be given enough time for proper vetting, and essentially all will fail ---- it's the nature of the game, and of GSK.

The "magic" of GSK management is the continual rearranging of the chairs on the deck of a luxury liner, trying to project that somehow the new configuration will make the boat go faster, run better, become more profitable. There are always people who will like any new arrangement, taking the "revised look" as fresh, invigorating. Others, will recognize it simply as the same chairs having been moved around, nothing really different, no new or revised infrastructure, no reason for the underlying boat's superstructure to perform differently, better. Mostly cosmetic changes, at best, with predictable outcomes over the next "3-year" cycle period (if they last that long).

Will the new PD Head please stand up?

What does it matter who it is? None of the senior managers have any backbone, and even less management or technical skills.

JB, still waiting: and the new head of PD is...........?

While we're waiting........, a joke - What takes longer at GSK... Hiring a new PD head or delivering a drug to market?

[You fill in the answer. Both answers are hilarious!]

JB - I know what I would do with the hire for the PD head, but I'm not going to tell you what I would do. I want you to figure it out.

You're going to be waiting a long time for that Jackass to make a decision.

PTS (at least in RTP) is completely F'd up.

Constant re-org, re-location, attrition are finally taking its toll on actual projects.

From what I've seen in last few months, it looks like the wheels are starting to come off some of the departments that have been continually reshuffled and cut.

The talent pool has gotten so thin, that there has been some major blunders on projects in RTP directly attributable to reshuffled people being in the wrong department with no training and no leadership. I've heard that one EDS project stumbled because the chemists were making the wrong salt of a drug FOR MONTHS before somebody realized it.

I guess the problem was due to TAKING AWAY ALL OF THE ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS WHO USED TO SUPPORT THE SYNTHETIC CHEMISTS and assigning that work to a new group who had never supported synthis.

Now that's what I call "enterprise" thinking. Instead of having incompetent managers and understaffed groups screw up their own department, they can now screw up the entire enterprise!!

LOL

Has anyone noticed how Steve Day has messed up the organization? His leadership team are a bunch of clowns that have no sense of direction.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Has anyone noticed how Steve Day has messed up the organization? His leadership team are a bunch of clowns that have no sense of direction.

I am not in IMS but it sounds like IMS will be taken back into an enlarged PD organization next year. So any damage he has done may be undone.

Some of the recent PD promotions were laughable, especially when the congratulation emails came out listing the accomplishments (or lack of). Most promotions seemed well deserved, but not all.

Clive needs to kick Steve Day and Janet Williams to the curb and any of there little team whipping boys. This organization can't move forward with scientific integrity. It discusting to see every one of them preface every response with "As a member of the Leadership Team...." Well, you can't lead if you don't know the direction.

This crew is going to wreck the pipeline

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Clive needs to kick Steve Day and Janet Williams to the curb and any of there little team whipping boys. This organization can't move forward with scientific integrity. It discusting to see every one of them preface every response with "As a member of the Leadership Team...." Well, you can't lead if you don't know the direction.

This crew is going to wreck the pipeline

I am not in IMS and don`t know the people referenced but IMS is important to progressing the pipeline and that may well be why it will be coming back in under PD next year. Annette led a group that had PD and IMS type people in it in Pfizer so she is experienced.

Originally Posted by Anonymous

I am not in IMS but it sounds like IMS will be taken back into an enlarged PD organization next year. So any damage he has done may be undone.

Some of the recent PD promotions were laughable, especially when the congratulation emails came out listing the accomplishments (or lack of). Most promotions seemed well deserved, but not all.

You mean the JC one?

Originally Posted by Anonymous

You mean the JC one?

Yes that one. The email justification was very weak.

PD are getting t-shirts made with: "Annette Rocks" on them.