So it was no surprise to see the results of a survey forwarded to me by Wendy Blackburn, VP at InTouch Solutions Inc. InTouch, via The Harrison Group, had surveyed physicians in March on how they preferred to receive product information and found that:

• More than one third had received an iPad detail from a pharma sales representative

• Of those that had received an iPad detail, 68% reported being extremely satisfied or very satisfied with the format

• 8 in 10 rated digital detailing (iPad, iPhone, iTouch, Tablet, etc.) as the same or better than previous methods such as paper-based visual aids

• Significantly more physicians who had been in practice 20 years or less believed digital detailing was better than previous methods such as paper-based visual aids.

• The opposite was true for physicians in practice more than 20 years, who were more comfortable with paper-based details.

So yes, iPads are on whole welcomed by most doctors. But it seems that the iPad or whatever digital detail platform is used still needs a real human being presenting it. In the most recent edition of Med Ad News’ DotPharma e-newsletter, new research indicates that doctors are seeking a combination of digital and face-to-face detailing.

This research, conducted by Knowledge Networks using the Physicians Consulting Network, shows that doctors are seeking a combination of digital and in-person marketing. Although specialists and primary care doctors are increasingly relying on smartphones and tablets to check email, research medications and conditions, and take online surveys, they still prefer in-person visits with drug sales reps over electronic pharma marketing, or e-detailing, by a factor of 3-to-1.

Drawing on responses from 5,490 doctors, the 2011 Digital MD Marketing research shows that:

• 67% of PCPs and 61% of specialists now have a smartphone (64% of doctors overall)
• 27% of PCPs and specialists alike have tablet computers (such as iPads) – about 5 times the level in the general population
• Shopping and survey taking via mobile devices have grown significantly since 2010, but “e-detailing” grew less dramatically and is less common
• Reference applications, such as Epocrates and WebMD, are the most popular mobile medical “apps” – while apps from pharmaceutical manufacturers receive minimal use

Additionally:

• 79% of primary care doctors and 74% of specialists prefer in-person dialogue with reps; physicians ages 55 and over skewed higher on this answer by 12 percentage points, compared to those under 40
• 23% of primary care doctors and 28% of specialists prefer computer-based e-detailing; physicians over age 55 viewed this method only slightly less favorably than did younger physicians

Something hopeful also showed up in this research:  61% of primary care doctors and 50% of specialists still maintain an open-door policy when it comes to sales rep visits – compared with those doctors who insist that sales reps make appointments or who do not see reps at all.

So to answer the initial question, to iPad or not to iPad, the answer is a “yes” – so long as the physician is younger and there is a trusted sales rep to engage the conversation.

Known for its customer relationship management products, Veeva Systems has never been in the business of closed-loop marketing. But that changed today with the unveiling of Veeva iRep, which the company is billing as the pharmaceutical industry’s first complete customer relationship management and closed loop marketing solution built exclusively for the iPad. 

The login screen for Veeva's iRep

I was in attendance this morning as the company held a launch event at the Four Seasons Hotel in Philadelphia along with a number of Veeva’s partners, including Apple, Accenture, Cognizant, HighPoint Solutions, Mavens Consulting, and salesforce.com. iRep was introduced to the assembled guests by Peter Gassner, CEO of Veeva Systems. 

Also in attendance was Faruk Capan, CEO of Intouch Solutions. Veeva is partnering on the launch with the interactive pharmaceutical marketing agency. As the inaugural Veeva Web content provider, Intouch will be developing custom creative content for iRep, such as copy, visuals, video, and other interactive components. 

While Intouch Solutions is the first agency to develop CLM content for iRep, Veeva’s Chief Strategy Officer Matt Wallach assured me that iRep is open to all. The specifications for developing detailing materials for iRep will be made available to whatever content partner a client may bring to the table. 

The launch of iRep coincides with an article I had already been preparing for the February issue of Med Ad News. Continuing my long-running series on sales force effectiveness, I wanted to look at the exploding popularity of the iPad within the pharmaceutical industry as reps enjoy the device’s ideal size, long battery life, instant-on capability, and ease of use. I also wanted to highlight the broad range of vendors, like Veeva, who are stepping up to meet the CRM, CLM, and detailing needs of the industry’s sales reps. 

In designing iRep, Veeva did not want to simply port its existing CRM system over to the iPad. Instead, to take advantage of the iPad’s strengths, the multi-channel Veeva CRM functionality in iRep has been completely redesigned specifically for Apple’s touch-screen tablet. 

Veeva iRep's CRM functionality allows users to manage their accounts.

The platform then combines Veeva’s CRM functionality with a content viewer that enables users to present e-detail materials, deliver interactive presentations, and show visual data and video content with built-in recording and reporting functionality to close the marketing loop. 

Veeva iRep's CLM capability allows users to rate a physician's reaction to the product detail.

iRep will be available in February 2011. According to Veeva, during the next few months five leading pharmaceutical organizations in the United States and Europe are already set to hand their reps iPads installed with iRep. 

For more on iRep and other new pharma solutions for Apple’s iPad, look for the full story in the upcoming February issue of Med Ad News.

“With Vimovo now available in pharmacies across the country, AstraZeneca is excited to launch this new Web site, which puts healthcare providers just a click away from important information about Vimovo,” says Lisa Schoenberg, VP, commercial brand leader-specialty care, AstraZeneca. “With the launch of VIMOVOtouchpoints, AstraZeneca has created an interactive and convenient forum for physicians to learn about a new treatment option for osteoarthritis pain in patients at risk of NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.”

The Web site enables physicians to click to connect to a personal account specialist and have 24/7 access to information about the product. The resource provides physicians with a variety of helpful tools and information about Vimovo.

Healthcare professionals are able to click to chat with a personal account specialist; order Vimovo samples online; watch physician-led online meetings about Vimovo; as well as learn more about the product through in-depth information on efficacy, safety and tolerability, access, and affordability.

“Many of the 27 million Americans affected by osteoarthritis treat their symptoms with NSAIDs,” says Robin K. Dore, M.D., rheumatologist and clinical professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Anaheim and private practice in Tustin, Calif. “However, one half of chronic users are at risk of developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers, which may compromise effective management of the disease. In a single pill, Vimovo delivers both the proven osteoarthritis pain relief of naproxen while reducing the risk of developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers.”

Crucial conclusion for the eyes of pharma marketers: nearly half of the physicians surveyed say they require or prefer appointments to be made by reps prior to one-on-one meetings, while about 23% of doctors refuse to see sales reps at any time at any of their practice locations.

According to the SK&A survey, the percentage of doctors who will not allow access unless an appointment is scheduled increases measurably when their practices are owned by hospitals or health systems. In many cases, the appointment must be made through a headquarters location rather than the practice site itself.

Some other important findings:

• 98% of respondents report that their offices are visited by up to 20 industry reps per week or one rep an average of every two hours.
• Specialty physicians are less likely to grant sales reps access than general practitioners. The top-three most accessible physician areas are allergists/immunologists (4.2% no-see rate), orthopedic specialists (5.1%), and diabetes specialists (7.6%). The least accessible physicians are diagnostic radiologists (92.1% no-see rate), pathologists (91.8%), and neuroradiologists (90.6%).The access rates for these specialists have remained constant for the last two bi-yearly reporting periods.
• Offices with fewer patients seen daily are less likely to see sales reps. Sites with a daily patient volume of one to 10 have a no-access rate of 28.9%, while those with a daily patient volume of 31 to 40 have a 13.4% no-access rate. Sites that are less busy are often staffed by one physician who is not able to take a break from patient appointments to visit with industry sales reps.
• Health system- and hospital-owned offices are less likely to grant sales reps access. Health system- and hospital-owned offices have no-access rates of 30.8% and 29.6%, respectively. Non-health system and hospital-owned offices have no-access rates of 21.4% and 21.7%, respectively.
• Larger practices are less likely to grant sales reps access. Offices with one to two physicians have a no-access rate of 13.3%, while offices with 10 or more physicians have a no-access rate of 42.2%.
• Physician offices in the Western United States are least likely to allow sales reps access. The South had the lowest no-access rate of 19.4%, and the West had a 28.4% no-access rate.

Breaking down what the changing commercial business model entails, 40% of respondents identified the increased focus in market access strategies as the biggest change to the business model. Other factors cited as the biggest change to the commercial business model include primary sales force realignment (20%), increased focus on managed care (17%), increased focus on key opinion leaders (11%), and increased use of e-detailing channels (6%).

Beyond the changing commercial model, the Cegedim Dendrite survey found pharma execs anxious about pipeline growth (24%), the impact of regulatory reform (16%), generic competition (16%), cost, capital, and funding issues (3%), and patient involvement (2%).

Survey respondents stated that new product innovation and profitability growth are the most important business objectives in 2010. New product innovation and successful launch was cited by 67% of respondents as the top objective for 2010 and 51% cited profitability growth.

Not surprisingly, most survey respondents view prescribers and patients as their most important primary and secondary customer groups. What may be somewhat surprising, however, is a full 36% of respondents ranked patients as the primary customer over prescribers. Meanwhile, 27% cited managed care organizations as the primary customer and 24% cited government. Cegedim Dendrite analysts anticipate seeing the balance continue to tip away from prescribers as a primary customer toward these other groups.

The survey also sought pharma executives’ opinions on social media. Respondents are aware of and use social media, but it generally does not receive a large appropriation of their marketing budgets. Almost all (97%) of respondents indicate that they use at least one social media site on a daily basis, though whether that is for personal and/or professional use is unclear. The majority (51%) invest less than 5% of their sales and marketing budget in social media channels.

Social media is primarily used for external applications such as marketing and PR but is also used to a lesser extent for internal communications and human resources. Fifty-nine percent of respondents list “marketing” as the top way their company is using social media.

Software as a Service (SaaS) and cloud computing only seem relevant to a relatively small number of respondents. Only 7% cite the technology as “very important”, and 15% cite it as “important.” Many respondents do not appear to understand the topic, with 45% responding “Don’t know” to the question, “How important is SaaS or cloud computing in your sales and marketing initiatives?”

China was cited as the most strategically important BRIC country. Thirty percent of respondents chose China but 27% did not know which country was most strategically important for their company.

In reviewing the results of their survey, Cegedim Dendrite analysts came to the conclusion that the next six months of 2010 will most likely show pharmaceutical companies remaining focused on changing business models and product innovations. And as market growth in China and other BRIC countries has more of an impact on the industry, Cegedim Dendrite analysts expect to see pharmaceutical companies making changes to become more global-minded.

The company’s syndicated study identifies which companies are perceived by oncologists and hematologists to have the best image in this rapidly growing marketplace. The study was conducted with 465 physicians who evaluated more than 30 sales force, corporate equity and R&D attributes to determine which measures drive a pharmaceutical/biopharmaceutical company’s image and performance.

Experts at Market Strategies International say Novartis Oncology “has clearly become the major challenger to Genentech’s long-standing reign among physicians.” But Genentech continues to be the dominant player in the dimension of its R&D and its products.

Market Strategies International experts say their ongoing image studies indicate that companies evaluated as the top performers engage in behaviors that are most important to physicians. Specifically, there is a strong correlation between a highly favorable image and behaviors such as a physician’s likelihood to recommend products to colleagues, try new products, make additional time for sales reps and MSLs, and visit a company booth at ASCO.

The study indicates that while sales reps will continue to be the main face to their customers, companies would be wise to start thinking about the impact of a physician’s total customer experience with their company.

Physician experience is affected by a number of “touch points” beyond their core contact relationships and therapeutic experience with a company’s products. Experiences with R&D efforts, communication initiatives, commitment to patient access, and organizational structure all influence the customer experience, Market Strategies experts say.

In overall image, coming after Genentech and Novartis Oncology is Lilly Oncology, making a strong jump among the top 10 to third place from last year’s sixth place. Sanofi-Aventis is in fourth place, Amgen in fifth place, Celgene in sixth place, GlaxoSmithKline in seventh place, AstraZeneca in eighth place, Bristol-Myers Squibb in ninth place, and Pfizer in tenth.

Among hematologists, Millennium joined Genentech, Novartis and Celgene as tier one companies, challenging the perception that small companies cannot be competitive in both markets. Takeda’s improved ranking pushed Amgen and GlaxoSmithKline to fifth and sixth positions and Genzyme moved up in rank to seventh from twelfth.

For product R&D, Genentech and Novartis Oncology are again at No. 1 and No. 2, while Amgen is at No. 3, Celgene at No. 4, Lilly at No. 5, Sanofi-Aventis at No. 6, GlaxoSmithKline at No. 7, Bristol-Myers Squibb at No. 8, AstraZeneca at No. 9, and Pfizer at No. 10.

In sales force image, the companies that were first, second, and third in the rankings were Genentech, Novartis Oncology, and Lilly Oncology; in fourth was Amgen, while Celgene was in fifth place, Sanofi-Aventis in sixth place, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca in seventh and eighth place, and Bristol-Myers Squibb nd Pfizer again in ninth and tenth place.

In image of corporate equity, the Genentech and Novartis Oncology were again first and second, followed by Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly Oncology, AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Pfizer.

“Companies that recognized the critical importance of performing well on key driver measures improved their 2010 performance,” says Dr. Shawn Wade, VP of Market Strategies’ Specialty Pharmaceutical Division. “It’s clear that oncologists and hematologists attach high image ratings to companies that are highly innovative, trustworthy, and have knowledgeable sales reps that provide objective information.”

Market Strategies’ 2010 MSImage Oncology and Hematology Stakeholder Study was released to its subscribers on March 31, 2010. The questionnaire was fielded via the Internet among 465 physicians,100 oncology practice managers and 100 oncology nurses in February. Physicians were recruited from a nationally representative e-research panel.

These findings are available in SK&A’s latest Physician Access study, an ongoing survey of U.S. medical offices to determine policies for allowing healthcare industry sales-rep access to physicians and other prescribers. SK&A has been measuring industry access to physicians since June 2007. The recent study is based on telephone interviews with 213,616 medical sites representing 632,000 physicians. SK&A surveys its Office-Based Physician database every six months from its Research Center in Irvine, California.

In the past year, access to physicians has stabilized overall, suggesting that pharmaceutical marketers may have found the right mix of personal and non-personal promotion, according to Dave Escalante, SK&A VP of data and information solutions.

The percent of physicians who require or prefer appointments has increased significantly in the past year, from 38.5% in December 2008 to 49.6% in December 2009, according to the survey. The number of physicians who restrict access altogether has remained unchanged in the past 12 months at about 23%.

The report found specialty physicians are less likely to grant sales reps access than general practitioners. The top-three accessible physicians are allergists/immunologists (4.4% no-see rate), diabetes specialists (7%), and gynecologists (7.5%). The least accessible physicians are diagnostic radiologists (91.8% no-see rate), pathologists (91.7%), and neuroradiologists (91.5%).

Offices with fewer patients seen daily are less likely to host sales reps. Sites with a daily patient volume of one to 10 have a no-access rate of 28.9 percent and those with a daily patient volume of 31-40 have a 13.6 percent no-access rate.

Health system- and hospital-owned offices are less likely to grant sales reps access than offices not part of a health system or owned by a hospital. Health system- and hospital-owned offices have no-access rates of 30.3% and 29.5%, respectively. Non-health system and hospital-owned offices have no-access rates of 21.5% each.

Larger practices are less likely to grant sales reps access. Offices with one to two physicians have a no-access rate of 13.4% while offices with 10 or more physicians have a no-access rate of 42.1%.

Physician offices in the Western U.S. are least likely to allow sales reps access. The South had the lowest no-access rate with 19.4%, and the West had a 28.2% no-access rate.

Houston numbers 2,170 physicians across 385 sites, according to SK&A. Meanwhile, San Antonio numbers 1,607 physicians across 332 sites, Fort Worth numbers 1,029 physicians across 303 sites, and Austin numbers 974 physicians across 137 sites.

Why is this? High skin cancer rates? Dust lung? The preponderance of bull-riding injuries?

Actually, as the Wall Street Journal Health Blog reported in 2008, “In the last three years, 7,000 doctors have moved to Texas. So many doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble keeping up with the requests for licenses.”

Due, according to this opinion piece in the WSJ, to a clampdown on damages in malpractice suits.

But these clusters are major population centers, and Texas is a big state. Despite all the doctors in places like Houston and San Antonio, The Texas Tribune reported in January that, “Dozens of rural Texas counties have no primary care doctors, no hospitals, no pharmacies. Many Texans live more than an hour from basic medical care. Some border communities have so little health care that U.S. citizens cross over into Mexico to get it.”

The article explains the discrepancy as the “payer mix” problem: “Rural Texans, who are older and poorer on average than urban Texans, are often uninsured or on Medicare. Some are undocumented, particularly along the border. They aren’t profitable patients for doctors, pharmacists or hospitals struggling to stay in business in isolated communities.”

According to this December 2009 article in The Dallas Morning News, legislators in Washington tried to make a difference by getting some relief for the rural healthcare system written into the Senate and House healthcare reform bills in the form of higher Medicare reimbursements for some rural health programs and geographic areas and added resources to recruit providers to rural areas.

With passage of healthcare reform now on the rocks, however, even that help looks uncertain. Meanwhile, nonprofit rural clinics are struggling to fill the gap.

The Partnership for Prescription Assistance is also doing what it can. A year ago today the partnership announced that its “Help is Here Express” bus tour would be making stops in various cities throughout Texas in order to help uninsured and financially-struggling Texans access information on programs that provide prescription medicines for free or nearly free.

The Partnership for Prescription Assistance is a nationwide effort sponsored by America’s pharmaceutical research companies providing a single point of access to more than 475 patient assistance programs that help those who are uninsured or struggling financially. Nearly 200 of the programs are provided by pharmaceutical companies.

In the past, healthcare has followed consumer-marketing trends. Although the only major healthcare recall headliner so far in 2010 has been Johnson & Johnson/McNeil Consumer Healthcare’s massive recall of OTC drugs including Tylenol, Motrin, and St. Joseph’s aspirin because of a moldy smell that made people ill, there has also been the banning of Abbott Laboratories‘ controversial obesity drug Reductil across Europe due to cardiovascular safety concerns; Nipro Medical Corp.’s voluntary recall of All GlucoPro Insulin Syringes; the Class I recall of ev3 Endovascular Inc.’s Trailblazer Support Catheter; and BD’s worldwide voluntary recall of BD Q-Syte Luer Access Devices and BD Nexiva Closed IV Catheter Systems.

So, being the marketing-minded pharma gal that I am, of course, my first question was: ‘Where are all the pharmaceutical recall incentives?’

The Med Ad News Insider corresponded with Rob Peters, VP, professional strategy, MicroMass Communications Inc., and Nancy Drescher, VP, account director, AbelsonTaylor, to glean healthcare ad agency insight into the idea of pharmaceutical recall incentives.

According to Mr. Peters, with increased publicity on product recalls — whether in consumer goods or pharmaceuticals — the question of whether competitors can use the situation exists.

In the pharmaceutical industry, this has already been occurring, though in a much less visible way than the GM example, he says. In most cases, short-term gains may be possible, but those often come at the expense of higher scrutiny on remaining products and more difficult market entry for developmental compounds.

There are several reasons why branded products disappear from the market. Usually this is the result of patent expiry or a withdrawal related to a negative event or safety concern. When something like this happens, remaining market competitors may be able to use the situation to their advantage. Mr. Peters believes as a result of the complexity of FDA and regulatory issues, however, competitors can not usually adapt quickly enough to take advantage of the immediate situation, but can change strategy to accommodate the new market dynamic that evolves in the wake of the withdrawal.

Competitors faced with this opportunity have to assess whether there are actions they can take, or whether they should let market forces work on their own. If the withdrawal of a product results in a small market with little competition, remaining players may choose to stay the course.

“For example, when Novartis’s Zelnorm was taken off the market, Takeda’s Amitiza was suddenly the biggest branded player in the IBS market,” Mr. Peters told the Med Ad News Insider. “Since HCPs and patients had few other options, Takeda let market forces turn the tide rather than to respond.”

On the other hand, he says, if a highly competitive market remains, a company may react by shifting the messaging to focus on other competitors to establish its points of differentiation. In some cases, this may necessitate a company’s distancing itself from any perceived class effects before differentiating.

“When Vioxx was pulled from the market, for example, the response from Celebrex was not to also pull its product from the market, but to stop promotion, ride it out, and then come back with stronger language around the appropriate patients and the safety concerns for Celebrex,” Mr. Peters says.

In a similar manner, when the statin Baycol was taken off the market in 2001, safety became a more sensitive issue for competitors, and as a result, a point of differentiation in promotion. This was beneficial for in-market products, but made entry of later competitors like Crestor more difficult.

In certain cases, regulatory bodies play a key role in opening opportunities for potential gain. Recently, Genzyme’s manufacturing problems with Cerezyme prompted FDA to ask Shire and Protalix to submit new drug applications for their experimental drugs so that physicians could use them before formal approval. Shire and Protalix will likely benefit from that action, but there is nothing they themselves can initiate.

Patent expiry presents another interesting opportunity for companies to profit from a branded product leaving the market. In these situations, branded companies may choose to enter into a supplier partnership with a generic company and provide product in return for a greatly reduced, but enduring, profit. One example of this may be seen in a current online campaign by Merck in the hypertension market.

“The campaign is aimed at informing HCPs about the impending generic form of Cozaar, however, the campaign includes a message recommending that patients be put on branded product so that they can continue uninterrupted use of the drug—and at a lower price—once generics are available this spring,” Mr. Peters says.

Two possibilities exist for this strategy: 1) Merck may be trying to head off another drug from that class that goes generic a few months before they do,or 2) the company may have an agreement with a generic supplier to manufacture its drug.

Ms. Drescher says there have been examples of products and companies in the pharmaceutical space benefiting from the misfortune of competitors. The actions taken in response to the negative press associated with pharmaceutical brands, however, have typically come from other players in the space versus the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

“The most recent analog that best mirrors this example is the failure of Vytorin/Zetia to affect atherosclerosis progression by failing to slow the growth of plaque in the carotid arteries in the ENHANCE trial,” Ms. Drescher explains.

Soon after, Vytorin/Zetia suffered another blow when the SEAS trial delivered disappointing results. Not only did the brand fail to affect outcomes in aortic stenosis patients, there was an observed increase in the risk of cancer.

“Physicians were quick to turn to generic simvastatin as a result,” Ms. Drescher says. “Astra Zeneca’s Crestor also benefited as the product was already indicated for the treatment of atherosclerosis and had just demonstrated an impact on cardiovascular outcomes in the JUPITER trial. Managed care companies were additionally quick to promote the lower cost — and lower co-pay — alternative simvastatin directly to patients in their plans taking Vytorin and Zetia.

Ms. Drescher cites an example that dates back to the ’90s, which took place in the highly competitive antihistamine market. Claritin had been held up for review for several years with FDA. With Seldane on the market and Hismanal already under review, FDA viewed Claritin as a me-too drug. It was classified as a low priority review, calling into question its efficacy — which was slightly better than placebo — and safety — concern with increased liver tumors in animals — given the two other nonsedating alternatives.

When serious cardiovascular adverse events were reported with Seldane, FDA required Dear Doctor letters to be issued regarding its impact on QT interval prolongation and ventricular arrythmias. As the number of incidences increased, FDA updated the Seldane and Hismanal labels and required their promotions and packaging to include a black box warning. In addition, the agency recognized the benefit of having an alternate safe, nonsedating antihistamine on the market, and approved Claritin not long after.

“Given the negative publicity around Seldane and Hismanal, physicians and patients turned to Claritin and it quickly became the market leader,” Ms. Drescher says.

In both cases, other forces — whether physician, patient, managed care or FDA — were responsible for pushing a competitive brand, she says. In the case of branded competitors, the pharmaceutical companies used promotions and messaging to reinforce their brand benefits, but the push, and desire, for an alternate choice was already in play.

“In the case of generics, managed care organizations typically have the most to gain from a move to a generic competitor, so they tend employ aggressive marketing tactics to generate a switch,” Ms. Drescher says.

As future business leaders, today’s children are primed to work and collaborate in a real-time, 3D virtual setting. ProtonMedia is laying the groundwork for that future as the developer of ProtoSphere, a virtual social environment in which users’ computer avatars can meet for online teaming and collaboration. ProtonMedia’s customers include such life sciences companies as AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck.

Although Ms. Kittrel acknowledged that as of now, interest in the possibilities of virtual collaboration far outstrips actual adoption, as her examples demonstrate, for the next generation of life sciences CEOs, researchers, and sales people, a second life will be second nature.

Microsoft’s Sam Batterman, who goes by the title “business intelligence evangelist,” spoke today about how these virtual collaboration environments function as far more than just the “N” drive on a company’s network. For example, in addition to document and application sharing, ProtoSphere provides the tools teams need to collaborate socially online, including holographic virtual spaces with interactive avatars and bots, VoIP audio conferencing, text chat, presence awareness, video streaming, blogs, wikis, feeds, role-playing simulations, content workflow, and enterprise social networking. For the life sciences industry, Mr.  Batterman suggests uses such as constructing virtual data rooms, a chemistry plaza, or innovation and ideation networks.

The big question is, why do all this in a virtual environment? Why transform the collaboration companies do every day into a massively multiplayer online role-playing corporation? The answer, according to panelist and ProtonMedia CEO Ronald J. Burns, is that in a virtual collaboration environment, it’s not just the charts and graphs and documents housed in the online environment that have value; the avatars themselves have value. The skills and expertise held by the real-world personalities behind the avatars are available and accessible.

But that’s not the only reason, according to panelist Tony O’Driscoll, a professor of the Practice of Business Administration at Duke University. He believes that virtual collaboration online represents the third generation of the Web, the point where the user is enveloped within the content.

The author of Learning in 3D: Adding a New Dimension to Enterprise Learning and Collaboration, Mr. O’Driscoll highlights the value of learning in 3D environments with the equation I x I = E. That is, Interactivity times Immersion equals Engagement. His research has found that bringing people together in virtual learning environments can have a positive impact on the learner’s engagement with the material. According to Mr. O’Driscoll, learning leadership is not only possible in the virtual environment, it’s an ideal venue in which to do so.

In the gaming world, roles change quickly and decisions must be made rapidly, on the fly. Gamers must assimilate numerous sources of input to develop strategies and put plays into action. The gamer must then quickly develop new skills in order to advance through the game. The same principles of learning, advancement, and reward can be transferred to the business world, according to the proponents of virtual 3D collaboration technology.

Before virtual collaborations can gain traction in the business world, however, a critical mass will need to be reached of senior leaders ready to adapt to new technology, according to panelist Tom Kaney, managing partner, MKP Partners.

It may just be a matter of time. Today’s 13-year-old 7^th level mage fighting orcs in Azeroth is tomorrow’s pharmaceutical sales rep or oncology researcher. She’ll be ready to bring the power of virtual collaboration to the workplace, if companies like ProtonMedia don’t succeed in getting there first.