COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
A landscape is only useful when it forces decisions.
The conventional competitive map shows you what exists today. That's a snapshot, not a decision tool. What commercial and launch teams need is a structured view of the field that surfaces the decisions the asset actually has to make — where the next entrants will land, which mechanism classes are converging, and where the window for differentiation sits.
We organise the landscape by mechanism class and development stage, tracking expected entry dates against your launch window. It ties directly to the pricing, positioning, and sequencing choices your team has to make. The landscape is the input to scenario planning, not the output.
Competitor Perception MAPPING
Positioning isn't where you say you are. It's where physicians put you.
A perception map externalises the trade-offs physicians actually weigh — not the attributes marketing wants to emphasise, but the ones driving prescribing when the patient is in front of them. In IBD, the two dimensions that matter most are onset of action and durability of remission. Every mechanism class sits somewhere on that plane, and the class position defines what the competitive argument has to be.
We build these maps from primary physician research, real-world data, and claims signals — then overlay them against the positioning you and your competitors are actively promoting. Where the gap is large, there's a message to fix. Where it's small, there's a defensible position to reinforce.
SCENARIO PLANNING
Scenarios aren't forecasts. They're a structured rehearsal for the decisions you haven't made yet.
We run scenario work adapted from the methodology Shell developed in the 1970s — the approach that let the company see the oil shock coming when almost no one else did. The logic travels to pharma cleanly. In a market where a single regulatory decision, competitive entry, or access policy shift can redraw the landscape, planning against a single forecast is a bet that the forecast is right. Scenarios are a bet that it probably isn't — and a way to know, in advance, what you would do either way.
The process moves from open exploration to narrow commitment. It starts with an environmental scan that surfaces the real tensions shaping the market — not the consensus risks, but the contested ones. Those tensions get pressure-tested down to two validated dimensions, which define a four-scenario architecture. Each scenario gets developed into a coherent world with its own logic, triggers, and signposts. From there, we generate candidate strategic actions and assess which ones hold up across multiple scenarios — the robust moves — versus those that only work in one. The output is a set of decision rules the team can act on as signals emerge, rather than a binder that sits on a shelf.