Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life sciences research often turns out to be ineffective. Our aim was to develop a method for mapping repetitive research processes, detecting practice variations, and exploring inefficiencies. METHODS: Three samples of R&I projects were used: companion diagnostics of cancer treatments, identification of COVID-19 variants, and COVID-19 vaccine development. Major steps involved: defined starting points, desired end points; measurement of transition times and success rates; exploration of variations, and recommendations for improved efficiency. RESULTS: Over 50% of CDX developments failed to reach market simultaneously with new drugs. There were significant variations among phases of co-development (Bartlett test P<0.001). Length of time in vaccine development also shows variations (P<0.0001). Similarly, subject participation indicates unexplained variations in trials (Phase I: 489.7 (±461.8); Phase II: 857.3 (±450.1); Phase III: 35402 (±18079). CONCLUSION: Analysis of repetitive research processes can highlight inefficiencies and show ways to improve quality and productivity in life sciences.