A steering committee is an advisory body that plays a significant role in guiding and managing the direction, scope, budget, and timelines of a project or organization. It comprises senior stakeholders, experts, and authority figures who bring diverse perspectives and expertise to ensure the successful completion of projects.

Key Functions of a Steering Committee

1. Providing Advice and Direction: Steering committee members use their expertise to offer recommendations that steer the project towards its goals. They define measurable and trackable objectives to ensure the project remains on course.
2. Setting Project Timeline and Budget: The committee establishes milestones and deadlines, managing the project budget to keep it aligned with the timeline and financial constraints.
3. Monitoring Project Quality: They identify quality standards, audit them regularly, and track results to ensure the project meets its goals and legal safety requirements.
4. Evaluating and Monitoring Risks: Steering committees proactively identify potential risks, assess their likelihood and impact, and develop plans to mitigate them.
5. Defining Project Outcomes: They outline specific, measurable, and meaningful outcomes to ensure the project achieves its intended impact.

Roles and Responsibilities of Steering Committee Members

Composition of the Steering Committee

Steering committees typically include senior managers, executives, key external stakeholders, and subject matter experts. The composition varies depending on the project’s purpose, but it generally aims to cover all functions under its purview.

Key Roles 

1. Chairperson: Elected to lead the committee, ensuring impartiality and effective governance.
2. Senior Stakeholders: Key decision-makers who bring authority and expertise to the project.
3. Subject Matter Experts: Individuals with specialized knowledge relevant to the project’s goals.

Responsibilities

• Advocating for Projects: They promote initiatives and projects within the organization.
• Strategic Guidance: Offering advice on budgeting, resource allocation, and strategic direction.
• Approving Plans and Changes: Reviewing and endorsing project plans, timelines, and budget adjustments.
• Resolving Conflicts: Mediating disputes and providing solutions to project-related issues.
• Risk Management: Identifying, monitoring, and addressing potential risks to the project.
• Ensuring Quality: Keeping an eye on project quality and making necessary adjustments.

How to Run an Effective Steering Committee

Clear Objectives and Organized Agenda 

To be effective, a steering committee must have well-defined objectives and a structured agenda. This ensures that meetings are productive and focused on achieving the project’s goals.

Open Dialogue and Diverse Perspectives 

Encouraging open dialogue and including diverse perspectives helps in considering all opinions and making well-rounded decisions.

Utilizing Business Intelligence (BI) 

Using BI tools to gather and analyze data allows the committee to make informed decisions based on accurate and up-to-date information. This is crucial for tracking project progress and identifying areas for improvement.

Example of Effective Steering Committee Use

Consider a project where the steering committee uses a BI dashboard to monitor progress. The dashboard shows the status of various tasks, highlighting areas experiencing delays. With this data, the committee can quickly address issues, reallocate resources, and keep the project on track.

Conclusion

A well-functioning steering committee is essential for the successful management of projects and organizational goals. By providing strategic direction, managing risks, ensuring quality, and utilizing accurate data, steering committees can significantly enhance the value and success of any project.

Steering committees bridge the gap between project teams and organizational leadership, ensuring that projects are completed efficiently and effectively. Understanding their roles and responsibilities is crucial for anyone involved in project management or organizational leadership.

A Medical Science Liaison (MSL) is a specialized professional within the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device industries. MSLs are experts in specific therapeutic areas such as oncology, cardiology, or infectious diseases. Their primary role is to establish and maintain relationships with leading physicians, researchers, and clinicians, also known as key opinion leaders (KOLs).

Why MSLs Are Important

The rise of MSLs in Europe and the U.S. is driven by the need for clear communication of complex scientific information. As biopharma product portfolios evolve and personalized medicines develop, particularly in areas like oncology and autoimmune disorders, the role of MSLs becomes crucial. They serve as a credible link between the clinical development teams and external healthcare stakeholders, aiding in the successful commercialization of products.

Key Responsibilities of an MSL

1. Scientific Communication: MSLs disseminate complex scientific data to healthcare providers, ensuring that the information is clear and accessible. This involves presenting data at scientific meetings, publishing research, and educating internal teams.
2. Building Relationships: MSLs foster strong relationships with KOLs to gain insights that can inform business strategies, product development, and market access.
3. Training and Education: MSLs provide comprehensive training to sales and marketing teams, ensuring that all communications about a product are accurate and consistent. They also educate healthcare providers about new therapies and clinical practices.
4. Compliance and Ethics: MSLs must operate within strict regulatory frameworks to ensure all communications are compliant with promotional codes and ethical standards.

The Lifecycle Role of an MSL

– Early Development: MSLs generate interest in new molecules and their mechanisms of action among external experts, laying the groundwork for future clinical trials.

– Pre-Launch: They build awareness of the drug, engage with opinion leaders, and present data to prepare the market for the product’s launch.

– Launch: During the product launch, MSLs provide education on clinical evidence and proper use of the drug in clinical practice.

– Post-Launch: After launch, MSLs continue to educate prescribers, respond to their questions, and support ongoing clinical studies and publications.

Qualifications and Skills Required

Most MSLs have advanced scientific training, typically holding doctorate degrees (PhD, PharmD, MD). Essential skills include excellent communication, the ability to present complex information clearly, and strong interpersonal skills. MSLs must also stay updated on the latest scientific research and clinical practices in their field.

Working Conditions

MSLs often travel extensively, covering specific geographic regions. They work for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies, and their role requires them to attend professional conferences and meetings frequently.

The Impact of MSLs

MSLs play a vital role in the healthcare industry by ensuring that new therapies reach patients effectively. They help bridge the gap between clinical research and practical application, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes.

Conclusion

Medical Science Liaisons are key players in the healthcare landscape, providing essential scientific insights and fostering collaboration between healthcare providers and the pharmaceutical industry. Their role is critical in the successful development and commercialization of new therapies, making them indispensable to the modern medical and scientific community.

Modern writers often depict opinion leaders as intermediaries between media and the public in the adoption of products, services, ideas, behaviours, or beliefs. However, this definition is overly restrictive, for opinion leaders transcend traditional boundaries.

They manifest as individuals whose choices, be it in products, services, ideas, behaviours, or beliefs, reverberate, influencing the decisions of others.

Opinion leaders are omnipresent, from individuals like Ryan of Ryan’s World shaping children’s toy preferences to Chris Van Tulleken translating complex research on ultra-processed food and presenting it in a way that has become part of Britain’s national discourse.

In healthcare, the pivotal role of engaging with Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) cannot be overstated.

However, opinion leadership is often characterised as a malevolent, capitalist force, corrupting our inherently noble and rational decision-making process, and making people buy products and services they don’t need or that are contrary to their best interests.

Such a view is simplistic and, I think, springs from the mistaken belief that decision-making would be a fundamentally rational process without the influence of opinion leaders.

Not only is this not true, but we will see how in many situations the rational response to a decision is to look to an opinion leader for guidance.

To understand opinion leadership, we therefore need to understand how people make decisions, and why some innovations, ideas, beliefs of products take-off, and others don’t.

The following exploration will therefore unravel the intricacies of why we make the decisions we do and the role of opinion leaders in shaping society.

We will then look at how you can use this understanding to shape your marketing strategy and work with opinion leaders.

Origin of the Concept: Seeds of Opinion Leadership

The roots of opinion leadership reach down to the work of agricultural sociologists in the 1940s, notably Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross. Their study on corn seed adoption (1943) in Iowa sought to understand why farmers were slow to adopt a new, obviously superior corn seed.

Ryan and Gross discovered that farmers embraced innovations only when influential figures within their social networks did so — these figures became the keys steering the shift in opinions and behaviours.

Similar phenomena were observed in the medical field by Coleman, Katz and Menzel (1966); adoption of tetracycline among medical doctors was a social decision, shattering the then prevailing view that such decisions in medicine were purely rational and based on data.

Coleman, Katz and Menzel discovered that doctors who had more interpersonal relationships and networks, were quicker to adopt than those that didn’t.

Everett Rogers noted that this showed “that the diffusion of an innovation is essentially a social process that occurs through interpersonal networks.”

These seminal studies laid the foundation for understanding the social dynamics that govern decision-making.

Social Dynamics in Decision-Making: Beyond Rationality

Malcolm Gladwell, in his ‘Revisionist History‘ podcast, reflects on basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain’s perplexing decision to switch from an underhanded free-throwing technique to the overhand throwing technique favoured by all basketball players.

Chamberlain was a giant man. In his first two seasons in the league, the only way to stop Chamberlain was to foul him; Chamberlain was a terrible free thrower.

In 1962, Chamberlain decided to shoot his free-throws underhanded, the so-called “granny shot”, and he averaged over 50 points per game over the season (the highest non-Chamberlain average across NBA history is Jordan’s 37.1 points per game in 1986-87).

Experts argue that the underhanded free-throw is a better technique, it certainly was more successful for Chamberlain.

But the next season he went back to shooting overhand and became a terrible free thrower again. Chamberlain recognised it was the wrong decision but said “I felt silly, like a sissy, shooting underhanded. I know I was wrong.”

Gladwell argues that “Wilt Chamberlain’s brilliant career was marred by one, deeply inexplicable decision: He chose a shooting technique that made him one of the worst foul shooters in basketball—even though he had tried a better alternative.”

Chamberlain’s decision is not inexplicable though, it is only irrational, it is a deeply human decision that demonstrates the social nature of decision-making. People frequently make decisions to fit in with a social dynamic, rather than from a rational analysis of benefit.

Researchers, building on the work of Ryan and Gross, developed theories such as the two-step flow of communication, diffusion of innovation theory, social network theory, and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

While diverse in their approaches, these theories share a common thread — an acknowledgment that human decision-making is profoundly influenced by social dynamics.

Opinion Leaders and The Two-Step Flow Model of Communication

In 1948, Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet formulated the two-step flow model of communication, challenging the view that mass media outlets were dominant in shaping public opinion. They argued that mass media content first reaches “opinion leaders” — active media users who interpret and disseminate meaning to less-active consumers.

Elihu Katz further refined the theory, outlining three key attributes that characterize opinion leaders:

1. Expression of Values

Opinion leaders are individuals who openly articulate their values and beliefs. They are not hesitant to communicate their opinions on various subjects. This quality makes them influential, as others look to them for guidance and direction.

2.Professional Competence

Opinion leaders possess expertise and competence in their respective fields. They are knowledgeable and well-informed, which enhances their credibility. Their professional competence contributes to the trust that others place in their opinions and decisions.

3. Nature of Their Social Network:

The social network of opinion leaders is crucial. These individuals are well-connected within their communities or industries. The nature of their social network involves having influence over others and being positioned at the centre of information flow. This central position enables them to disseminate opinions effectively.

Examples that support this two-step flow model of communication abound, from prominent teachers on Twitter translating cognitive science into teaching methods, to Chris Van Tulleken bridging the gap between the science of ultra-processed food and public knowledge.

Opinion Leaders and The Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Building upon the foundations laid by Katz and Lazarsfeld, Everett Rogers introduces the Diffusion of Innovations Theory, a compass for understanding how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technologies spread.

Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory identifies five main elements that collectively influence the spread of a new idea within a society or social system:

1. The Innovation Itself

The nature of the innovation is a critical factor. Rogers emphasizes that certain characteristics of an innovation can impact its adoption rate. Innovations that are perceived as more advantageous, compatible with existing values, easy to understand, and easy to test are more likely to be adopted quickly.

2. Adopters

Adopters are the individuals or entities within a social system who decide to accept and use the innovation. Rogers categorizes adopters into five groups based on their adoption behaviour: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. The characteristics and behaviours of these adopter categories influence the overall diffusion process.

3. Communication Channels

Communication channels are the means through which information about the innovation is transmitted within the social system. These channels can include mass media, interpersonal communication, social networks, and various forms of communication technology. The choice of communication channels affects the speed and reach of the diffusion process.

4. Time

The element of time is crucial in understanding the diffusion process. Innovations take time to move through the stages of adoption, and the rate of diffusion varies. The timing of an innovation’s introduction, as well as the rate at which it is adopted, can be influenced by external factors, societal trends, and the context in which it is introduced.

5. The Social System

The social system encompasses the overall structure and dynamics of the community or society in which the innovation is introduced. Social norms, values, traditions, and existing networks all play a role in shaping how an innovation is received. The social system provides the context within which the other elements interact and influence the diffusion process.

Rogers argues that early adopters, or opinion leaders, play a pivotal role, influencing the early majority to embrace innovations. These leaders, characterized by higher social status, financial liquidity, and advanced education, guide the narrative, fostering the acceptance of groundbreaking ideas.

Rogers illustrates the theory through a study by Wellin (1955) on the unsuccessful adoption of a health scheme in a Peruvian village. The scheme aimed to limit the spread of typhoid and other water-borne diseases by encouraging people to boil water before drinking it.

Despite the step needed to make water safe, boiling it, being straightforward and easy, only 11 of 200 households adopted the practice.

The health worker advocating for the scheme lacked the respect of the villagers and the scheme was contrary to social norms, underscoring the theory’s key conclusions: decision-making isn’t rational but is profoundly influenced by social norms, and key opinion leaders are indispensable for the acceptance of beneficial innovations.

Opinion Leaders and Social Network Analysis

Durkheim and Tönnies began researching social groups in the late 19th century, and there were other sporadic examinations of social structure over the next 100 years or so, but it was in the age of the internet and social media, that social network analysis took centre stage, offering ways to examine the structure of networks, relationships, and the influence they have on beliefs and decision-making.

Social network analysis examines human society as a series of nodes, with each node representing an individual in the network, and ties or links representing the relationships between individuals. creating a map of social influence.

Analysis of social network maps can reveal important information about the networks, and about the individuals within those networks.

As Coleman, Katz and Menzel discovered in 1966, those with more interpersonal networks and relationships adopt innovations sooner than those who don’t.

Rogers characterises early adopters as opinion leaders.

Examination of a network map therefore allows us to identify opinion leaders by identifying the individuals with the greatest interpersonal connectivity. Furthermore, we can also identify structural holes in networks, and individuals who are boundary-spanners, lifting our ability to precisely engage with individuals within a network (see ‘The importance of social networks in the spread of ideas’).

Mapping the social network also aids in understanding the dynamics that shape the acceptance or rejection of innovations.

Innovations do not spread rapidly through social networks where individuals are tightly interconnected, whereas social networks where individuals have disparate and varied social relationships see a more rapid spread of new ideas.

In the Wilt Chamberlain example of social decision-making explored by Gladwell, Chamberlain knew his underhanded shooting technique was more successful, and yet the social norms of his network, a belief that underhand shooting was for “grannies”, caused him to adopt a less successful technique.

And while the Wellin study of the adoption of water-boiling in Peru did not conduct a detailed examination of the social relationships within the village, social network theory helps us understand the likely reasons why the health worker was unsuccessful in introducing this life-saving idea to the village:

1. The social network of the village was likely highly interrelated with individuals having few relationships outside of the village – social network theory argues that such networks are less open to innovations.
2. The health worked failed to engage with the key opinion leaders in the village.
3. The idea of boiling water before drinking was contrary to the social norms of the network.

Opinion Leaders and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Thomas Kuhn’s groundbreaking work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” published in 1962, challenged the traditional notion of scientific progress as a steady accumulation of facts and theories.

Kuhn proposed an alternative perspective, introducing the concept of paradigm shifts and revolutionizing the way we understand scientific development.

Kuhn’s theory suggests that scientific progress is not a linear, continuous process but rather occurs in episodes characterized by periods of conceptual continuity, known as “normal science.”

These episodes are punctuated by moments of revolutionary science, where a new paradigm emerges, reshaping the scientific community’s fundamental ways of thinking.

In contrast to the rational image of science, Kuhn’s theory stirred controversy by asserting that paradigm shifts are not entirely rational processes.

The adoption of a new paradigm involves a shift in the fundamental assumptions and frameworks guiding scientific thought, challenging the prevailing rationality of scientific progress.

What does Kuhn’s theory suggest about opinion leadership and the dynamic social nature of decision making?

While Kuhn did not conceive of his theory applying to cases such as the health intervention of boiling water in a Peruvian village, his theory is another lens through which we can understand decision-making and opinion leadership.

Wellin noted that there was an existing paradigm in the village that boiling water was reserved for the unwell.

Kuhn did not talk about opinion leaders as such, but as we have already seen, they are often viewed as translating complex information and communicating it in a way that is compatible with the ways of understanding of their audience.

Kuhn’s theory argues for a paradigm shift in the Peruvian village, but perhaps an opinion leader would have been able to introduce the idea of boiling water to remain healthy, in a way that was consistent with the village’s belief about boiling water being for the unwell, rather than as something contrary to it.

Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions provides a powerful framework for understanding the dynamics of progress and change within scientific communities.

By applying Kuhn’s concepts to real-world examples, such as the challenges faced in introducing new health practices, we gain insights into the role of paradigm shifts and the importance of opinion leaders in navigating these transformative moments.

What Do These Theories Tell Us About Opinion Leaders?

Exploring these theories has allowed us to better understand opinion leaders and opinion leadership.

Opinion leaders:

1. Are respected figures within their social networks.
2. Are endowed with judgment, principles, and high social status.
3. Reshape information to align with prevailing beliefs.
4. Leverage their extensive networks for influence.
5. Rely on personal judgment rather than conformity when making decisions, positioning them as catalysts for change.

Opinion Leadership: From Theory to Practice

Having explored these fascinating theories about the opinion leaders and opinion leadership you may be asking you what you should take from them. Key things for you to remember.

1. Opinion Leaders are vital in any decision-making process, whether you choose to engage with them or not.
2. Opinion Leaders are a natural part of social decision-making and not a malignant force.
3. You cannot rely on the quality of your product alone.
4. Opinion Leaders can translate the benefits and advantages of your produce into messaging that people understand.
5. Opinion Leaders can help you understand the benefits and advantages of your product that are most salient to consumers.
6. Different opinion leaders influence different customers.

In our recent survey of Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs), we delved into the essential elements of an effective working relationship with the pharmaceutical industry.

The consensus among these influential voices was unequivocal: they overwhelmingly ranked “open and honest” interactions as the paramount attribute, with “good communication” securing a solid third place.

This insight forms the cornerstone of our exploration into the importance of open and honest KOL communication for effective KOL engagement.

Join us as we unravel the significance of transparency and effective communication in forging successful KOL engagement.

What do we mean by “open and honest” KOL communication?

We can talk about not lying through omission, looking for an outcome but not being honest about it upfront, and not communicating clearly why a KOL is not suitable for a particular activity.

Ultimately though, “open and honest” KOL communication is about two things:

1. Doing what you say you will do.
2. Treating KOLs as partners working towards better patient outcomes.

And while relentlessly following these two things is difficult, being true to them leads to profound benefits.

The Profound Benefits of Transparent KOL Communication

Embracing open and honest KOL communication is not merely a strategic manoeuvre; it is a transformative investment that yields many advantages.

Open and honest communication (a central focus of management with Kim Scott’s ‘Radical Candor‘) can have a profound impact of transparent interactions in KOL engagement.

1. Building Unshakeable Trust

Trust, as the first pillar of success in relationships with KOLs stands as the cornerstone of enduring and productive partnerships.

When KOLs recognize and rely on your integrity and straightforwardness, it fosters a profound sense of security and mutual respect.

They trust that they can tell you things that you don’t want to hear but you need to know, and they want to engage with you because they trust you.

2. Nurturing Exceptional KOL Engagement

The ultimate reward of transparent KOL communication lies in exceptional KOL engagement.

When KOLs perceive that their insights and expertise are valued through candid communication, they become deeply invested in your projects.

This heightened engagement transcends mere participation, resulting in more substantial contributions, greater enthusiasm, and a profound commitment to shared objectives.

It’s the forging of relationships that extend beyond the professional, fostering a collaborative environment.

3. Fostering Innovation and Collaboration

Open communication channels act as catalysts for a culture of innovation and collaboration.

KOLs are more likely to share their unfiltered thoughts, ideas, and concerns when they feel their input is genuinely valued.

This unfiltered exchange of perspectives frequently leads to breakthroughs, novel approaches, and creative problem-solving.

Transparent KOL communication becomes the incubator for innovation, propelling projects to new heights within the industry.

4. Enhancing Patient Care

The ripple effect of open and honest KOL communication reverberates to the very core of the pharmaceutical industry’s mission: patient care.

Transparent collaboration between KOLs and industry professionals directly influences the quality and effectiveness of healthcare interventions.

This commitment to transparent KOL engagement ensures tangible improvements in patient care, directly benefiting the well-being of those we ultimately aim to serve.

The profound benefits of transparent communication with KOLs extend far beyond the immediate exchange of information.

It’s a journey of building trust, establishing a credibility legacy, nurturing exceptional engagement, fostering innovation, and ultimately enhancing patient care.

But as we know, this isn’t always easy.

Navigating Challenging KOL Communication Scenarios

To illuminate the complexities of communication with KOLs, let’s delve into two scenarios that underscore the nuances of such interactions and contemplate the best responses.

Scenario 1: The Funding Request Dilemma

Picture a scenario where a KOL approaches you, fervently seeking funding for an educational initiative they are deeply involved in.

You resonate with their enthusiasm, recognizing the project’s value and alignment with your company’s values.

However, when you request funding approval, it is regrettably denied.

Conveying this decision to the KOL poses a challenge, given the potential disappointment and the fear that they might view you as the face of that decision.

It’s a delicate conversation that, if avoided, could exacerbate the situation.

How to Navigate:

1. Timeliness is Key: Address the situation as promptly as possible. Delaying the conversation risks the KOL learning about the decision from an alternative source.

2. Personalized Communication: Opt for the most personal mode of communication, be it face-to-face or over a phone call, to convey the decision. This approach demonstrates respect for the KOL’s position.

3. Empathy Matters: Acknowledge the disappointment from the KOL’s perspective. Show empathy by recognizing the reasons behind their feelings. Understanding and validating their emotions can go a long way in maintaining the relationship.

Scenario 2: The Local KOL Request Evaluation

Now, imagine a scenario with a local KOL with whom you’ve had frequent collaborations expressing a desire to deliver substantial presentations for your company.

However, considering your roster of KOLs for upcoming speaking engagements, you have reservations about their qualifications compared to others.

How to Address:

1. Timely and Honest Communication: Address the situation promptly, fostering a culture of openness. Honesty is paramount in conveying your considerations.

2. Personalized Approach: Engage in a personal discussion with the local KOL, emphasizing the importance of your relationship and the specific factors influencing your decision.

3. Encourage Growth: If the KOL expresses a desire to qualify for such speaking engagements, explore opportunities to support their development. Offering guidance or resources can transform the situation into a constructive pathway for growth.

These scenarios underscore the intricacies of open and honest communication in KOL engagement.

In our interactions, KOLs have emphasized a simple sentiment: “It’s alright to say no.”

While negative responses may not always be welcomed, KOLs consistently value honesty, recognizing it as an integral component of a transparent and respectful partnership.

Conclusion

Open and honest KOL communication is both an art and a responsibility. While it can be challenging, it is a cornerstone of productive and enduring relationships in the world of KOL engagement.

By navigating these challenges with integrity, we not only fortify our connections but also uphold the values of trust and transparency that underpin successful collaborations.

Networking is a cornerstone of successful key opinion leader (KOL) engagement. Whether you’re new to your therapy area or firmly established, the art of networking can significantly enhance your KOL relationships.
In this post, we delve into the pivotal role of conference networking in establishing and nurturing meaningful connections with KOLs.

The benefits of KOL networking

Networking plays a pivotal role in KOL engagement for several key reasons:

1. Building Relationships with KOLs

As more interactions with KOLs become virtual, the value of face-to-face interactions has soared. Eye contact, tone of voice, and facial expressions are vital for effective communication.

In fact, a study by the Harvard Business Review found that 95% of participants believed that “face-to-face meetings are a key factor in successfully building and maintaining long-term relationships.”

Even in the age of Zoom and Teams meetings, the personal touch remains vital in KOL engagement.

2. The Scientific Community

Conferences are one of the few places where the scientific community in a particular therapy area gathers. They foster a sense of community that goes beyond the presentations.

And, as this article on the importance of social networks and scientific advancement demonstrates, scientific communities and interactions are the bedrock of scientific advancement.

By attending these conferences in person, and networking with KOLs, you become an integral part of the expert network, which is precisely where you need to be for successful KOL engagement.

3. Information

KOL networking is an excellent way to gain insights into both the disease area and your product. I would argue that the most important benefit of effective KOL engagement is the enhanced knowledge you gain about your product and the therapy area it exists in.

There’s strong evidence to suggest that information is more clearly conveyed and understood through face-to-face interactions than virtually. A meta-analysis by the CIPD found that virtual interactions have lower levels lead to lower levels of trust, and information sharing, and that it was more difficult in virtual interactions for people to reach a consensus.

Networking at conferences is an important way to gain unique insights that only KOLs can provide.

4. Knowing the KOLs

Conversations with KOLs can reveal their approachability, opinions, alignment with your organization, and potential for collaboration on studies or other activities.

Personal interactions are invaluable for gathering crucial information about key KOLs.

It is this crucial information that will help you make crucial KOL engagement decisions about who to approach about particular activities and for particular insight.

Is Face-to-Face KOL Networking Dead?

While the pandemic disrupted traditional conferences, most major events have now adopted a hybrid format, offering both in-person and online attendance. Contrary to expectations, in-person attendance is making a comeback.

For example, ASCO (The American Society of Clinical Oncology) reported that 73% of attendees at their 2022 congress, the first hybrid one following COVID, chose to attend in person.

And why did they choose to attend in person?

Because attending congresses has always been about more than simply seeing the presentations. It has been about networking.

How to Prepare for KOL Networking at Conferences

Before diving into the world of KOL networking at conferences, it’s essential to lay the groundwork:

• Review the congress agenda to identify attending KOLs and relevant talks.
• Align specific objectives with KOLs and plan your interactions accordingly.
• Reach out to KOLs in advance to arrange meetings. Pitching up at a meeting without prior contact may result in missed opportunities.

Effective KOL Networking Strategies

When engaging with KOLs at conferences, employ these strategies for success:

• Connect with both pre-planned and spontaneous KOLs.
• Express genuine enthusiasm and appreciation for presentations you find valuable.
• Prepare specific questions for each KOL.
• Take diligent notes during discussions.
• Reflect on your daily interactions and identify areas where you can gain further insight.
• Share valuable KOL contacts with your colleagues.

Conclusion

In conclusion, networking at conferences remains an essential component of KOL engagement. The excitement and expertise these events offer create invaluable opportunities for building strong, long-lasting relationships with KOLs.

Your enthusiasm for the opportunities to engage with KOLs’ expertise and insight can only improve your key opinion leader networking.

A key opinion leader (KOL) in pharma is a medical expert who, because of their expertise and prominence in a particular therapy area, influences other healthcare professionals in their management or treatment in that therapy area.

A KOL in pharma is likely to have the following characteristics:

• Expertise – they are knowledgeable about a topic.
• Innovative – they are open to new ideas and trying to push knowledge forward.
• Integrity – they are intellectually honest.
• Connected – they interact with many other people and have the platform to be known.
• Respected – others respect them because of the above.

What is opinion leadership?

The concept of opinion leadership and key opinion leaders (KOLs) was born out of the work of agricultural sociologists in the 1940s. Researchers such as Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross (1943) were interested in understanding why new innovations in corn seed, which were obviously beneficial, were not immediately taken up by farmers in Iowa.

These researchers discovered that the decision-making process was less rational and more social than people had supposed; most of the farmers only adopted the new, better, hybrid corn seed once an influential member of their social network did so. These influential people were the keys that led to the changing opinion and behaviour of others.

Studies throughout the latter half of the 20th Century confirmed that individuals in a network do not respond to the adoption of new ideas rationally:

• Mosteller (1981) – adoption of eating citrus fruit in the British Navy to prevent scurvy.
• Wellin (1955) – adoption of boiling water before drinking in rural Peru.
• Rogers and Kincaid (1981) – adoption of family-planning in Korea.

Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations is the best book on opinion leadership and influence in social networks.

Coleman, Katz and Menzel’s 1955 study on the adoption of tetracycline among medical doctors found the same pattern of behaviour; doctors who interacted with KOLs and other doctors who used it were more likely to adopt it.

How does a KOL influence their peers in pharma?

A KOL in pharma influences their peers through the respect in which they are held, and their ability to communicate effectively.

1. KOL expertise – the KOL makes objective judgements not based on social norms.
2. Respected – non-KOL HCPs look to the KOL for the lead when it comes to new ideas.
3. An innovation – a new idea or product is introduced.
4. KOL judgement – the KOL engages with data and theory relevant to the innovation.
5. KOL decision – The KOL decides to adopt the innovation.
6. Narrative – the KOL creates an easily understandable narrative as to why they have adopted.
7. HCP understanding – non-KOL HCPs understand the narrative and trust its source.
8. HCP adoption – the innovation is adopted by HCPs influenced by the KOL in pharma.

Which brings us nicely onto our next question…

Do pharma and other healthcare companies need to engage with KOLs?

You absolutely need to engage with KOLs.

As a life science company, you’ll know that the quality of your product, the benefit it promises for healthcare professionals and patients, and the data that supports it isn’t enough to lead to uptake.

In the famous diffusion of innovations graph, early adopters, or key opinion leaders, drive the acceptance of an innovation.

The first reason why you need to engage with KOLs in pharma and other life-science industries, is that they can spread news of your product to other healthcare professionals and their social position will mean that this product message is likely to be accepted.

Without the help of KOLs, your beneficial product may be ignored, in the same way that for almost fifty years the British Navy ignored citrus juice as a preventative measure for scurvy.

The second reason why you must engage with KOLs is because of the insight the KOL can provide you.

As researchers such as Eveland (1977) have shown, the KOL also acts as a change-agent, adapting an idea or the message that leads to its adoption as it spreads.

KOLs are experts in their field, and if you aren’t working in partnership with them, then your product and data and messaging about your product won’t be optimum.

Examples of the information and expertise KOLs in pharma can provide include:

• Running clinical trials.
• Interpreting trial data.
• Illuminating current and ideal clinical practice.
• Advising on product messaging and placement.
• Advice about political issues around healthcare.
• Presenting product data.

This is why whether you are medical affairs, marketing, sales, or research and development, you need to be engaging with KOLs.

Without KOL collaboration you won’t know exactly how your products should be used, which patients they will help the most, and non-expert HCPs won’t be aware of your products.

If you’re not engaging, you won’t be successful.

The diffusion of innovations graph, showing how early adopters, or as we know them KOLs, drive the acceptance of a new innovation. (Credit for image: Jurgen Appelo)

Why do pharma KOLs choose to engage with industry?

When working with key opinion leaders, it is important to understand why they may choose to work with you. Often understanding why a KOL may want to work with you will be the difference between your invitation to an activity being accepted or rejected.

KOLs are of course individuals with different motivations and viewpoints but below is a list of reasons why KOLs in pharma choose to work with industry.

Reasons why KOLs choose to work with pharma companies

Any of these reasons, on their own or in combination, will be the motivations behind KOLs in pharma deciding to work with industry:

• Money – KOLs deserve to be compensated for any work they carry out for a company, but money is rarely the an important motivator for a KOL choosing to engage with a company.
• Research – Many KOLs wish to carry out exciting research and often industry is a major source of funding.
• Professional development – KOLs can develop or hone skills, such as presenting scientific date, through industry activities.
• Scientific discussion – Activities such as advisory boards are often an opportunity for interesting academic discussion.
• Latest research – Working with industry is often a way to access the latest scientific research and shape the future of a therapy area.
• Altruism – By engaging with pharma, KOLs can sometimes deliver educational resources or other schemes they see as beneficial to their community.

What are the different types of KOL in pharma?

Often, we find ourselves identifying very specific types of KOLs for clients which are particular to the client’s contexts and needs. There is little value in discussing these context-specific categories of KOLs here as they only have value for those particular companies.

However, it is also often beneficial to categorize KOLs to help with decisions about who to work with and why. Some general categories that can be used include:

Different types of KOL in pharma.

Innovators

• Collaborate with a wide-range of different experts.
• Not necessarily particularly influential.
• Almost exclusively make up their minds about the science and are not influenced by others.
• Knowledgeable about the latest science and research, particularly about new and unusual
  ideas.
• Excellent for their insight into the future of an area and to test new and exciting ideas.

International KOLs

• Highly published, involved with the major international societies and journals.
• Influence international and national KOLs and, indirectly, everyone else.
• Make up their own minds about the science and influenced by other international KOLs.
• Have knowledge of the latest research and/or best practice.
• Essential for clinical trials and endorsement.

National KOLs

• Some scientific research, involved with the major national societies, and guidelines groups.
• Influence national and local KOLs.
• Influenced by international KOLs and other national KOLs.
• Have knowledge of the latest research and/or best practice.
• Excellent for knowledge of national best practice and clinical need, and national influence.

Local KOLs

• May have published a few articles, often lecturers at medical schools.
• Influence local non-KOLs.
• Influenced by international and national KOLs.
• Have knowledge of the accepted scientific view.
• Excellent for local educational presentations and decisions and knowledge about local
  guidelines.

Rising stars

• A few published but highly regarded articles, occasional executive committee membership of national societies.
• May influence non-KOL local HCPs.
• Influenced by international and national KOLs.
• Have knowledge of the latest scientific research and clinical best practice.
• Good to establish relationships with them before they become highly influential.

Invisible influencers

• Neither their amount of scientific research nor their positions of influence reflect their influence in a therapy area.
• Often the conduit for new ideas and ways of thinking to international and national KOLs.
• Influenced by international KOLs.
• Knowledge of the latest scientific research and future directions of a therapy area.
• Excellent for message shaping and insight.

What is a digital opinion leader in pharma?

A digital opinion leader (DOL) in healthcare is someone with a high profile online, generally through Twitter, YouTube, podcasts or blogging.

In general, we would say that there are two possible types of digital opinion leaders.

The first, is a key opinion leader who happens to also have a digital presence; this might be someone who publishes widely, is president of a national society, and happens to also post to Twitter.

The second type of digital opinion leader is followed online but wouldn’t be considered a key opinion leader offline; they would be someone who doesn’t publish and doesn’t have any other traditional markings of key opinion leadership, but is active online, has followers, and disseminates medical best practice.

While you can identify the second type of digital opinion leader through analysis of social media only, for the first type of opinion leader you would need to conduct a traditional identification and mapping of KOLs in pharma, and then analyse the social media use of those key opinion leaders (KOLs).

Does this matter? Well, yes. Because the type of digital opinion leader that can be analysed through a digital opinion leader listing only isn’t really an opinion leader at all.

Firstly, they are not necessarily experts and therefore there is no scientific insight that can be gained from collaborating with them, though they may have insight into how customers are thinking about a product.

Secondly, while theoretically, they can disseminate information, and sway opinions, I have found from talking to countless medical professionals about how they use the internet, that very few pay attention to those online who don’t have more traditional expertise and credibility.

In other words, only the first type of digital opinion leader, the ones who are also traditional KOLs, have significant influence or scientific insight.

To better understand how Kendle Healthcare can identify the right KOLs for you, please follow the link.

Information and influence in importance of social networks

The social relationships between people are important in the development and spread of new ideas because of two principles:

• Rather than make up their own minds when presented with information, individuals look to their social network to decide whether to adopt a new idea or not.
• Information and ideas flow through a population of people through social interactions.

Key opinion leaders are those who are connected, either directly or through intermediaries, to many others in a network. Their social connectedness means they receive new and diverse information and ideas and are therefore more knowledgeable than others. Their own thinking and ideas also have greater reach within a social network.

Social network analysis – the study of the relationships between individuals – is therefore a brilliant tool for identifying, understanding, and engaging with, KOLs. Social networks are not just some dry theoretical construct but a vital force in the development and acceptance of new ideas and thinking. To demonstrate the importance of social relationships in the development and spread of ideas, we’re going to look at how the most important scientific theory ever came to be developed.

Edmund Halley, Isaac Newton and Newton’s three laws of motion

In 1684, 28 year old Edmund Halley was the astronomy community’s brightest young star (the comet is named after him). He knew or corresponded with nearly all the great minds in European science; he had worked with the great Belgium astronomer Johannes Hevelius; he was assistant to the Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed, and, when he wasn’t working on his lunar observations, spent his time discussing the latest ideas and theories with fellow members of the Royal Society. It was in one of these London coffee house discussions in January 1684 that he posed the question which led to the publication of the most important book in history of science. While discussing the dynamics of planetary motion, Halley asked two friends, Christopher Wren and Robert Hooke, if the force that kept the planets moving around the sun could decrease as an inverse square of the distance? Wren and Hooke laughed. The ‘inverse square law’ was not a new concept: it was the principle upon which all the laws of celestial motion were established. The problem was that nobody had found the mathematical means to prove it. Wren confessed that he had been working on the proof for some time himself but without success and, eager for a solution, he offered a cash prize to whoever could provide the proof. Hooke said that he had already proved it and that he would provide the calculations in two months’ time.

Seven months later, however, when neither Hooke nor anyone else had produced the proof, Halley decided to look elsewhere for the answer. There was an academic in Cambridge who had a reputation for scientific and mathematical genius, and Halley thought it worth discussing the problem with him. He knew the man was a recluse who rarely communicated with the rest of the scientific community, so rather than write to him and receive no reply, Halley decided to meet him in person.

Which is how, in August 1684, Halley ended up sitting in a study at Trinity College, discssing planetary motion with Isaac Newton. Halley asked Newton what curve would be made by the planets around the Sun ‘supposing the force of attraction towards the Sun to be reciprocal to the square of their distance from it’. Newton immediately replied that it would be an ellipse. Halley, ‘struck with joy and amazement’, asked him how he knew this. ‘Why’, said Newton, ‘I have calculated it’. But Newton had carried out these calculations almost 20 years previously, when he was a student, and now couldn’t find them. So Halley made Newton promise to do the calculations again and send him the proof. Two months later, Newton sent Halley De motu corporum in gyrum, which proved the ‘inverse square law’ and Halley arranged and paid for its publication himself. But Newton didn’t stop there: in 1687, he sent Halley a further work, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which extended Newton’s work on the movement of planets around the sun, into a general theory of celestial motion.

Halley, Newton, information and influence

The development and spread of new ideas is not simply great minds experimenting and theorising. The great minds do experiment and theorise but they don’t do it in isolation, there is a social dimension to scientific discovery. Within this social dimension individuals receive information and spread influence.

We can see the importance of social relationships for the flow of information. Halley’s thirst for ideas and knowledge can be seen through the diverse relationships he has within the scientific community – Hevelius, Flamsteed, Wren and Hooke – he likely isn’t influencing these people, but he has learnt from them. Unsatisfied with the knowledge offered by his coffee house clique, Halley went looking for information elsewhere through a different social connection (an example of the concept of weak-ties, that communication between close and similar associates is easy and frequent, but that it is the communication between dissimilar associates, so-called weak-ties, that is often the most crucial in the diffusion of innovation). And the meeting between Newton and Halley in Cambridge is vital because Newton learns that the scientific community wants this proof.

But relationships aren’t just a tool by which information flows, they are also a way that information and ideas are validated by opinion leaders. Halley already has the idea of the ‘inverse square law’, but it is only because Wren and Hooke confirm its importance that he goes on his quest to find the proof. For Newton, his ideas only become known to the scientific community through his relationship with Halley. Halley publishes the two books and through his influence makes sure that Newton’s ideas become known. It is important to recognise though that social influence isn’t the only type of influence. Generally the individuals who are most esteemed for their expertise are also the most socially connected both because their social connectedness fuels their expertise and also because their expertise attracts ever more social connections. However, it is not always the case. If we had conducted a social network analysis of English natural scientists at the beginning of 1684, then the esteem that Newton was held in by his peers wouldn’t be apparent. He would have seemed far less important than countless members of the Royal Society who the world has long forgotten.

What social network analysis can tell us about opinion leaders

By studying social relationships, we can understand the flow of influence and information through a social network. The position of an individual within a network can also tell us a lot about their influence, who influences them, and their attitude to new ideas and information. This is to some extent a matter of interpretation rather than black and white answers, which is why we always recommend to clients that social network analysis is accompanied with a face-to-face consultation and interpretation session. However, there are some common positions that individuals have within networks that can tell us a lot about the type of opinion leader they are, and how to engage with them and the network.

Central Hub

In the network map above, the circles are experts, and the lines between them social relationships. The social-connectedness of each expert, their centrality to the network, is calculated. The larger the circle, the higher their centrality. The red circle above is the most well-connected individual in this network and they are so well-connected that all other individuals seem to fan out from this one central hub, like spokes from a wheel. This particular individual is likely to influence the rest of the network to a huge extent. When engaging with this disease area, the overwhelming influence of this one individual would mean that they would need to be central to any engagement strategy. In particular, the individuals most closely connected to the central hub, the cluster encompassed by the dotted line, are likely to all hold very similar views to the central hub – useful to know when planning advisory boards and other activities seeking feedback.

Broker

The two individuals highlighted in red above are the bridges by which information travels between the two most important clusters in this social network. There are several individuals who have more extensive connections than these two within the network (we can tell from the size of their circles) but their position at the cross-roads of the flow of information means they are likely more important than anyone realises. Like Edmund Halley, their diverse relationships mean that they are interested in new and different ways of thinking. When planning how to engage with this network, we would emphasise:

• Their importance is likely only apparent through social network analysis, they are therefore hidden opinion leaders;
• They are probably early adopters, who are open to new ideas and thinking;
• And because they are open to new information, when providing feedback they are likely to supply information about the latest ideas.

Boundary Spanner

n the network above, there is one cluster of individuals, on the right, that appears to dominate the whole disease area. Because the individuals within this cluster are highly interconnected, we can conclude that they are heavily influenced by the thinking of their peers, probably to a far greater extent than the individuals outside the cluster. Often the most well-connected individual within the cluster, the central hub, is the bridge by which new ideas and information flows into the cluster, but that isn’t the case here. In the same way that Halley was on the edge of the clique of London scientists, part of the group are also looking outwards. In the network above the two individuals highlighted in red are on the edge of the cluster, but also the means by which new information is introduced. When seeking to engage with this cluster, it is worth knowing that these two individuals are likely to be the most open to new ways of thinking.

Structural holes in a network

A social network is the means by which the development and diffusion of new ideas takes place. Some networks are more conducive to the diffusion of innovation than others. A few months ago we conducted an opinion leader identification project for a client. One doctor was a clear opinion leader: he had published many influential and well-respected articles, was a member of a national society’s advisory board and, when we interviewed his peers, was always mentioned as someone whose opinion they respected. However, when we conducted social network analysis of the disease area, we could see that this opinion leader (lone red dot on the left of the map) was socially isolated from the rest of the community, in particular from the cluster in red on the right. Like Newton he had authority, but he didn’t exercise that authority through personal interaction, which is why his centrality score is low and his circle small. We therefore recommended to our client that they ‘fix’ the social network by providing a connection between the lone opinion leader and the dominant cluster. This would make the social network more conducive to the development and spread of ideas. This may seem a small thing, but if Halley had not fixed his social network by establishing a relationship with Newton, we may never have heard of Isaac Newton at all.

This is a flavour of how social network analysis can be of benefit when identifying and working with opinion leaders. Far from being some dry scientific theory, analysis of importance of social networks can bring you closer to the opinion leaders you engage with.