Each engagement is scoped to your specific question, with a fixed deliverable and timeline agreed up front. I prefer regular check-ins to long silences, so we stay aligned on where to dig deep, where a high-level view is enough, and where to build efficiently on work your company has already done.
Choosing which asset or indication to advance is one of the highest-stakes calls a biotech makes, and the expensive and avoidable mistakes usually aren't scientific ones. They're commercial and strategic, and they show up in different ways: a market you can't differentiate in enough to command pricing and uptake, a development path so unclear that a negative trial can't tell you whether your platform fell short or a poorly validated endpoint did, an asset that isn't de-risked enough to attract a partner.
I work alongside your team and add the layer your scientific assessment leaves out: the commercial opportunity and how defensible it is, the risks of getting there, and the time and capital it takes. I weigh those against your strategic and financial position, so you leave with a clear view of the trade-offs and a case you can defend to investors, partners, and your board.
Typical outcomes: a ranked list of the strategic goals your pipeline should be optimized for, tailored to your company; a high-level read of the commercial, competitive, and development dynamics shaping each of your specific indications or assets; a recommendation on where a deeper dive would most sharpen the decision
Most biotechs build the clinical plan first and bolt commercial thinking on afterward. That sequence is where avoidable cost shows up: a trial that reads out cleanly but doesn't differentiate enough to command uptake and premium pricing, a positioning call made too late to shape the data you need to support it.
I work backward from the commercial endpoint instead. I start by developing several candidate target product profiles, each a distinct commercial opportunity, so you have real optionality before you lock in a direction. I benchmark these against the competitive pipeline that will define the market at launch, not the standard of care you see today. From there I shape the development strategy that delivers the profile you choose: endpoints, comparators, target population, and the trade-offs that decide whether the data will support the claim you want. In oncology that means resolving line of therapy and monotherapy versus combination questions early, while they still shape the trial rather than constrain it.
Typical outcomes: competitive landscape analysis, commercial Target Product Profiles with optionality, implications for (pre-)clinical development; risk assessment
I translate your target product profile into a commercial forecast, built from patient population, uptake, and pricing. Netting that against development and commercialization costs and risk-adjusting by probability of success produces a risk-adjusted NPV you can stand behind, whether the decision in front of you is an internal go/no-go, a BD negotiation, or a financing round.
Typical outcomes: a defensible asset valuation with transparent assumptions; sensitivity analyses showing what moves the number most; supporting materials for BD conversations or financing rounds.
The decisions that matter rarely wait for a scoped project. A competitor reads out, an investor asks a hard question, a partner comes knocking, and you need senior commercial and strategic judgment that week, without standing up a full-time function you can't yet justify.
I work with a few companies at a time, on a standing retainer or, where the need runs deeper, a fractional role. Either way, I stay close enough to your pipeline and data that you never have to brief me from scratch. You get an experienced sounding board for the calls as they come: board and investor prep, BD inbound, reading competitive and clinical news, and the pipeline and positioning questions that surface between the bigger projects.