This interview explores the role of FFUND in supporting public-private partnerships, specifically focusing on the RespiriTB project, an IMI2 (Innovative Medicines Initiative) project running since 2019. Ilina Bareja, Project manager at FFUND, interviews Lluís Ballel Pages, Executive Director and Compound Development Team Leader at Johnson and Johnson. They share their insights on the importance of such partnerships, the challenges faced by consortia, and how the critical role of project management in ensuring the success of these complex collaborations.
Ilina Bareja (IB): Could you briefly describe your role at Johnson and Johnson?
Lluís Ballel Pages (LB): I am the Tuberculosis R&D lead, which means that I have responsibilities from discovery to late development for the organization for mycobacterial diseases, but more specifically for Tuberculosis (TB). Besides that, I am also the compound development team leader for projects at different stages of late discovery and development.
IB: What is the role of Johnson and Johnson as an EFPIA* partner in the RespiriTB project and what responsibilities came with it for you?
LB: We are an active EFPIA partner in a number of IMI (Innovative Medicines Initiative) and IHI (Innovative Health Initiative) projects related to infectious diseases such as ERA4TB and UNITE4TB. Specifically for RespiriTB, we are the industrial partner and leader collaborating with a number of academic partners.
IB: What is the importance of having such public private partnerships for a company like Johnson and Johnson?
LB: The field of tropical diseases, which includes TB, is an area of very high medical need that unfortunately receives only modest attention and resources in the private sector. We are lucky that our company is willing to put significant resources and funding behind it, but due to the lack of critical means we need to access every resource available within the wider environment. IMI is a pivotal mechanism for us to create those partnerships that allow us to move our drug development portfolio forward.
IB: What were some of the key challenges faced by the RespiriTB consortium, given that it is a public-private partnership?
LB: There is definitely a shared vision between the academics and industry, both wanting to do the right thing and contribute to this field where there is tremendous unmet medical need. The motivation is there, and it’s a great asset because it keeps the collaborations together. However, a company will always come with a product development mindset and clear goals about deliverables, usually specific stage-gate progressions for assets throughout the pipeline. Academics, while supportive of this agenda, might not feel entirely compelled by it and may have parallel or independent goals, such as keeping labs funded and focusing on publications. This can create misalignments. Additionally, prioritization can be challenging due to the dynamic environment in the industry for drug discovery and development, where priorities can sometimes change every six months. This can be difficult for academics who rely on stability for longer-term goals. In my experience, these tensions can however be successfully addressed through willingness to engage and understand each other’s perspectives.
IB: How were the above-mentioned conflicts resolved and how do you think FFUND helped in these challenging situations?
LB: The level of complexity within such consortia is extraordinarily high. You have the company with its layers of management, decision-making, and prioritization, and you have to make these compatible with the academic groups’ objectives of delivering publications and reports. It’s a collision of two worlds. Strong project management input is crucial to create visibility across boundaries, bring issues to the surface for open discussion, and consolidate and communicate decisions. Organizations like FFUND play a vital role in making these complex consortia work by facilitating communication, coordination, and decision-making. In the industry, project managers are crucial. Every large company prioritizes project management. Ironically, in consortia, which are even more complex, project management often receives less attention than within individual companies.
IB: What would you say would be the advantage of having a company like FFUND in the consortium as a partner over just individual project managers from each of the parties managing it?
LB: There are many advantages to having a third-party stakeholder like FFUND that doesn’t have strings attached to any of the partners. There’s always a political balance between the influence of different partners, and decisions need to be taken collectively. Having an honest broker third party like FFUND that can organize the agenda, provide visibility over the process, and facilitate decision-making is the right way to go. If project management role was associated with a particular partner, conflicts of interest could arise.
IB: Can you talk about one very good experience in the consortium and one very bad experience overall during the course of the project?
LB: I was very proud of an amendment we implemented. We had to discontinue some research lines and bring new ones to the table, which involved stopping funding for some groups. It was managed openly, professionally, and transparently. Delivering bad news is never easy, but it can be done in the right way. On the flip side, having difficult conversations and delivering disappointment was challenging. Careers were at stake, and commitments had been made. It’s not pleasant, but it’s an inevitable part of the job. So I think the best and the worst got mixed in the same process.
IB: Would you want to do another public-private partnership like this in the future if the opportunity comes up?
LB: I had wonderful experiences collaborating within European projects. You find partners that share your views and want to learn from you, and there is a connection and willingness to understand. However, if you get into it only for the money, it usually doesn’t work well. We will definitely engage in such collaborations in the future, but will be incredibly selective with the partners we choose to work with to ensure alignment of priorities.
IB: What would you suggest to someone trying to form a consortium in general?
LB: While money is extremely important, don’t do it only for the money because otherwise you are setting yourself for failure. Choose your partners very carefully, ideally ones you have worked with in the past because this type of a consortium is a long term commitment.
Establish the goals very clearly from the onset: you cannot make everyone happy all the time, so don’t try to accommodate too many goals. Second, establish shared priorities and an understanding of where, as a group, you want to get to, and make the process very clear.
Also, the governance is critical. Usually not all parties have previously worked in such carefully managed processes so tend to work independently, and not necessarily in a group. Empowering joint steering committees and consortium meetings to take and communicate decisions can help in overcoming such problems.
As for the size of the consortium, complexity is difficult to manage, but diversity brings different perspectives and innovation. For me, RespiriTB (9 parties) is a nice size. In my experience with various European consortia, when there are too many partners, it becomes fragmented and difficult to understand the overall goal. Consortia, rather than trying to be overly ambitious, should instead focus on delivering specific and concrete outcomes. This is however a very biased perspective from a product developer point of view.
IB: Lastly, based on the previous question, if you could give one advice to someone wanting to do a long running public private partnership, what would it be?
LB: From an industry perspective, make sure that what you are going to do is meaningful to your internal strategy and embedded in the future direction and priorities. Ensure it’s aligned with your internal strategy to avoid lack of support and resources.
From an academic perspective, realize that this is not a usual grant. You are part of a drug discovery process and can add tremendous value, particularly to the more innovative aspects of it, but you are still subservient to the process. Again, this is a very biased, industry view, and I genuinely appreciate the value of basic research, but would argue that if you want to do basic research, don’t get involved with an IMI grant.
*EFPIA: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
For more information on the RespiriTB project, check out their website and LinkedIn.
