This list of questions and answers related to our recent strategy announcement will be updated over time as more questions are received and our plans evolve.
Will the increase in membership mean a reduction in the need for extra project funding?
We would still expect further project & activity funding from members & elsewhere, for instance where a company wants to accelerate a project or that project is linked to key internal strategies & value impact. For larger projects we would want to fund from those directly benefitting from its impact.
By having the project funds offset to membership fees (instead of direct funding of our preferred projects) and limiting the number of individuals (PIC) who chose the projects to be funded, how can we reassure our companies that funds will be allocated to projects that are of interest to us indeed?
The PIC members will come from the membership at all levels and are expected to reflect the views of the membership and should seek out those views as projects come before them. They will also be accountable to the Board and members for these decisions. When funds are provided from a member beyond their member fees, those members can define where those funds are allocated to have maximum impact to their goals.
Is the intention that the Pistoia Alliance changes from a place where we put our respective expertise in common, to a separate entity influencing the industry thanks to its own advisory board and innovation investigators?
The Pistoia Alliance is looking to grow our impact across the industry for our members’ benefits and retain our current strategy. We see the Advisory board as a way to engage with key groups currently external to Pistoia Alliance. We want to grow our thought leadership and insights to our members as a value adding service. So we see this aligned to current activities and to ensure that Pistoia Alliance remains relevant.
What will be the specific scope of the Pistoia Alliance vs. other alliances?
Our Strategy remains in reducing the barriers to innovation through our pre-competitive approach. Our partnering approach will seek partners that can co-deliver activities that deliver value to our combined members and that is not duplicated elsewhere.
It feels strange to see that there is not even a non-voting seat for academics in the board?
Our Advisory Board is intended to reach out to the broader Life Science community and is also where we see a wider participation from academia coming from. (Our board is intended to reflect where the investment from members has come from).
When do the new rates and board structure start?
For new members, the rates start now. For existing members, the rates start at their renewal time.
Do you have a sense of how the projects will change, embracing the pan R&D agenda?
Firstly we hope our projects will continue to deliver increased value and impact to members. We will have a larger projects fund and therefore hope that will open up options. This will perhaps be a gradual change as new projects come into the portfolio. We hope that the Innovation Challenges will also impact the portfolio to reflect emerging trends and issues.
Is Pistoia going to support services and not just projects to make them sustainable?
That is something we are keen to discuss with the members and is very relevant to how projects like HELM continue in the future.