DISRUPTING THE NORM: HOW SMALLER COMPETITORS ARE REDEFINING THE PV SAFETY DATABASE LANDSCAPE
Surges in clinical and post marketing drug development and consumption, coupled with intricately evolving regulatory requirements are just some contributions to the continued growth of the PV industry, with predicted CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) revenue trajectories upwards of 10% by the year 2030. Such expansion appears to have resulted in an inward evaluation in existing systems and in recent years, may have influenced the rising number of companies migrating from one safety database provider to another. However, observations of this shift highlight a surprising trend - many companies are migrating from larger, well-known corporations, trusted by industry veterans, to their much smaller, up and coming competitors. This may be attributed to several factors that shed light on the unique advantages offered by these smaller players. So, why are businesses choosing to embrace the offerings of non-household names? Let's explore.
A primary advantage that smaller providers typically boast is the level of personalisation involved in their support and collaboration efforts. They have the ability to prioritise building close relationships with their customers and invest in dedicated teams that work closely with clients to understand their specific needs, offering hands-on assistance throughout the implementation and utilisation of their safety databases. Unfortunately, this level of support is not as easily achievable for larger companies as it requires additional resources, flexible standardisation and a company-wide customer focused culture backed by proportionate accountability. With a shared goal of ultimate patient safety, such values are a sought-after commodity for companies of all sizes.
Another significant reason for this migration trend is the innovation and agility exhibited by smaller competitors. Compared to their larger counterparts, these companies are able to quickly adapt to market needs and implement innovative features or improvements in their safety databases. Their flexibility allows them to address specific pain points within a shorter timeframe than what the industry has come to expect from certain well-known providers. Responsiveness to hurdles or developmental requirements in real-time, offers customers a level of dexterity that larger corporations often struggle to match.
Cost-effectiveness is of course another compelling factor driving companies towards smaller competitors. Lower overhead costs, leaner operations, streamlined approaches to product development and a lack of clinical and technology industry monopoly, enables (and let’s be real, mandates that) smaller players to provide affordable alternatives at the request of their customers. For smaller businesses whose database requirements may be purely a regulatory tick box exercise, affordability is clearly a defining aspect of choosing a provider. But, for multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies with a complexity of IT infrastructure, vast scales of operations and a need for customisation, budget optimisation without compromise of quality is just as important.
Some smaller competitors carve out their niche by specialising in catering to specific industries or target markets within the PV space. By focusing on a particular sector, they can develop deep expertise and create tailored solutions that precisely meet the unique requirements of those industries. This focused approach allows them to deliver highly specialised and targeted solutions, surpassing the broader offerings of larger corporations. This is often achieved by utilising in-house subject matter experts; PV professionals backed by knowledge of specific industries providing an edge in understanding the nuances and intricacies of those sectors when compared to technology focused software developers.
This emergence of smaller competitors introduces an element of disruption and differentiation for safety databases. Like any industry, healthy competition drives innovation and progress as smaller companies often bring fresh perspectives, novel approaches, and new technologies that challenge established players. The migration from larger corporations to smaller competitors represents a dynamic and evolving market. It reflects the growing demand for configuration, cost-effectiveness, and innovative solutions, as well as the increasing recognition of the value that smaller companies can provide. As the marketability of these solutions continues to evolve, it is unclear if larger corporations underestimate the need for adaption and if their competitors will maintain their current advantages.