Opportunity Scoring Models
A repeatable scoring system. Not a one-off.
A structured framework for opportunity scoring in pharma — go/no-go decisions on assets, indications, BD targets — operationalized as a repeatable system.
"On what dimensions does this opportunity score — and is it within our threshold?"
Defensible opportunity scoring blends quantitative (NPV, PoS, market size) with qualitative (strategic fit, capability, competitive density) — operated as a repeatable system, not project-by-project decks.
Opportunity scoring works only when it’s a system, not a project. Live scores, transparent weights, audited history — that’s what makes BD and IC committees trust the output.
What we’re seeing in the data.
Mix quant + qual axes
NPV alone is necessary, not sufficient.
Weighting must reflect strategy
Different acquirers should score the same opportunity differently.
Threshold-based, not ranking
Ranking creates false competition between unrelated opportunities.
Refresh on every signal
New readouts, deals, policy.
How to think about it.
-
01
Define scoring axes
NPV, PoS, market, fit, capability, competition.
-
02
Set strategic weights
Anchored to portfolio strategy.
-
03
Score per opportunity
Standardized rubric.
-
04
Apply threshold
Pursue / track / pass.
-
05
Operate as live system
Continuous refresh, audited history.
What separates a good answer from a defensible one.
Apples-to-oranges comparisons mislead.
Track score-to-outcome calibration.
BD, R&D, commercial, finance.
Defensible in IC and audit.
Where the signal comes from.
Common questions.
How many opportunities should be tracked at once?
A defensible system tracks 50–200 live opportunities, scored monthly.
Should scoring be public inside the company?
Yes — transparency drives better cross-functional input and reduces bias.
Want this answered on your data?
We build decision systems on top of analyses like this — so the next question takes minutes, not weeks.
Talk to a strategist