The background of our global head's request was the following. In the US and Europe, information suppliers to Health Care Providers, HCPs, are divided into two groups: medical persons and commercial persons. The information commercial persons can give to HCPs is strictly limited by governmental rules and regulations in their countries. However, in Japan, the authorities don't regulate the range of information commercial persons can provide. So, they can provide almost all of the data about our products to HCPs. This is why only a few pharmaceutical companies have their own medical departments in Japan.
About 2 years ago my team started in Japan. From the start, important directives came down from global headquarters, directing us to start regulating the information handled by commercial persons in Japan as soon as possible. They insisted that we were at risk of violating rules and being punished by authorities.
To support my arguments, as I mentioned previously, I will illustrate this experience with the six-step model as the 1st model, and Oakland and Tanner's organaisation change framework as the 2nd model. As the six-step model was meant to be followed in order, I will describe my experiences in …show more content…
However, their understanding and cooperation was necessary for its success. Therefore, we thought we had to progress step by step and we regarded this project as many phased project, not one big project. What we did first was to minimize the information regulation in order to get the agreement from the sales team easily. Then we made our vision, mission, value, goal and strategy, for the benefit of the Japanese sales team by the Japanese medical team. Showing the benefits for the sales teams was the key to making progress with this project. Finally, we were able to gain agreement with both global and the Japanese sales