In today’s volatile pharma landscape, advisory boards can no longer be one-off, in-person events that deliver static reports. Competitors move fast, market sentiment shifts overnight, and patient expectations are rising. Insights that once took months must now arrive in days—or hours.
That was the clear message from experts at Alcon, BioMarin, and BeOne Medicines during Within3’s recent webinar Engage. Analyze. Act: Mastering Virtual Advisory Boards in Pharma. Their discussion revealed both the shortcomings of traditional models and the opportunities of asynchronous, hybrid, and tech-enabled approaches that are redefining advisory boards as the gold standard.
Advisory boards are one of the most important sources of external perspective—and when they are connected with other signals like field activity, social sentiment, and congress activity, they become a powerful piece of Launch Intelligence™. The insights shared here highlight how pharma teams can modernize their approach and feed stronger, faster inputs into the broader launch process.
1. Traditional approaches limit insight quality and speed
Legacy advisory boards often struggle under scheduling constraints, time zones, and logistical hurdles. The result: insights arrive too late to influence critical decisions.
This challenge surfaced clearly in our registration poll: 34.1% of respondents said their biggest barrier is slow insights-to-action, while nearly as many pointed to quality of feedback.
Carolina Kunnen (Alcon) explained how her team has closed the gap:
“I’m working with a great team from Within3, and we are able to turn around and get insights within a week, and we implement that immediately. We move very, very fast. We have high demand and a very fast timeline. We make quick decisions.”
The implication is clear: insights can’t be locked to quarterly or annual cycles. Pharma teams need to embed continuous, near-real-time engagement to keep pace with the market.
2. Pharma teams know they need more agility
When asked about their ability to stay agile and gather timely insights from advisory boards, 52.1% of registrants said they are able to respond in a reasonable timeframe but still missing opportunities. Only 16.6% described themselves as highly agile, while 5.7% said they are not agile at all, with answers arriving too late to be useful.
Carolina described how advisory boards can evolve into a rolling conversation:
“We often pose quick questions that help us make quick decisions, but we also use it after as well, so we would get some feedback, and then based on that feedback, ask the next question. So it kind of keeps going. It’s not just getting insights and then making a decision, it’s more of a consecutive [conversation], and then it keeps going.”
Martina Laus (BeOne Medicines) cautioned against treating reports as outcomes in themselves:
“There is a difference between creating a report and sending out a report, and then observing and acting on insights. It takes some decision-making, it takes cross-functional sharing of those insights.”
The lesson: agility isn’t just faster turnaround. It’s the ability to embed advisory board inputs into live decision-making, across functions, as situations evolve. Teams that mistake “delivering a report” for “acting on insights” will find themselves outpaced.
3. Confidence in current processes is low
When asked about confidence in minimizing bias and ensuring equitable representation in advisory boards, more than half of registrants (54.5%) said they are only somewhat confident. Smaller groups described themselves as slightly confident (18%) or very confident (17.5%). Just 3.3% felt extremely confident, while 6.2% admitted they are not at all confident.
That uncertainty reflects persistent blind spots around bias, equity, and engagement. Traditional structures don’t always give every voice equal weight. By contrast, tech-enabled models can reduce bias through anonymity, translation, and more flexible participation windows.
Carolina pointed out a structural flaw in live settings:
“Allowing a platform where people can think about it, and maybe just read the question and take a little bit of time, it really makes a difference [especially] for those not having English as their first language, or maybe a little bit more introverted.”
Martina added that asynchronous technology helps overcome structural barriers:
“Being able to easily send information and get the responses back using technology is extremely helpful. And another thing that also comes to my mind is, again, going back to that launch phase, we don’t have all the necessary information and questions and input at one point in time. It comes in as we try to… as we collect more information.”
For pharma, this isn’t a “nice-to-have.” Equity in input directly shapes equity in outcomes.
4. Asynchronous engagement is becoming the gold standard
If traditional advisory boards are too slow and inequitable, what replaces them? Increasingly, the answer is asynchronous models.
Katie Huddleston (BioMarin) explained why live-only models leave too much on the table:
“In a live room, it’s incredibly difficult. I think about how many opportunities were missed by various KOLs at an 8-hour ad board, not having the option to go back into an asynchronous platform and say, wait a minute, I just had this thought. I think that that’s priceless, and it’s critical.”
Carolina reinforced the point:
“If you’re not doing this yet, if you’re only doing in-person ad boards, I think you’re missing out, because you could be faster, and you can innovate faster.”
One case study shared during the webinar illustrated the financial stakes: asynchronous input surfaced insights that helped a team avoid $6M in unnecessary spend.
Asynchronous isn’t just convenient — it’s fast becoming the industry standard for capturing more voices, better insights, and higher ROI.
5. Advisory boards are strategic—not standalone
The most effective organizations don’t treat ad boards as isolated events. They integrate insights across functions fueling everything from launch planning to long-term strategy.
Martina emphasized the importance of connecting data sources:
“We’ve had some really good examples internally where, for example, we combined insights from advisory boards with field intelligence and with market access data, and it allowed us to see gaps in the story. And then, based on that, we were able to refine the way we told our value proposition and ensure we were asking the right follow-up questions. So, for me, it’s not about one source, it’s about how you bring them all together into a coherent picture.”
Live polling reinforced this: attendees reported advisory boards were increasingly shaping strategic planning, not just tactical feedback.
The takeaway: Advisory boards are here to stay—but the format matters. Virtual, asynchronous, and AI-enabled models are delivering more voices, faster answers, and stronger alignment with strategy.
For pharma teams under pressure to act with speed and clarity, mastering these models isn’t optional—it’s the only way forward.
Watch the full webinar on demand.
Book a demo to see how Within3 can help your team engage, analyze, and act with confidence.
