Informational asymmetry

Using symmetrical process to generate asymmetry?

One challenge to the idea of Asymmetric Learning is that the existing process is working 'well enough'. 

Companies, however, are well aware that there is informational asymmetry between them and their competition: their competitor may have more experts, more experience in a field, or a year's head start. All other things being equal, an asymmetry of information should be to the advantage of the company with more.

Let's accept, of course, that more homogeneous information can be an extremely bad thing for a company, and when we look back and speculate why so many companies miss out on a second wave within their field (for example, we can see how many 'oncology' companies missed the Immuno-oncology wave, or how many 'traditional' vaccine companies struggled to mount the agile response needed in 2020), the presence of a vast body of groupthink reinforced by collecting likeminded 'expertise' must be seen as a negative. So, it is critical that the information asymmetry also favours diversity. Unfortunately, many companies organise towards compliance with their prevailing worldview, rather than encouraging the opposite. Just think how often the company's own view is reinforced by giving leadership what it wants to hear, or focusing on the next quarter's targets.

So, if an information asymmetry is desirable, the creation of that asymmetry should be a reasonable precursor. Which is where Asymmetric Learning comes in. Information that supports decision making should be robust and diverse, so the process of gathering that information should be robust and diverse. Instead of sending out one scout serially to find new land, sending several in parallel is more likely to produce a useful discovery.

In pharma terms, that asymmetry then will come from broader exploration both of what the product might do, and what the market might want. Focusing on one question may produce greater weight of evidence, but behind only one hypothesis - it will not produce the kind of informational asymmetry that is desired, but greater confirmation bias. So, we might question our exploration phase, and we might question why we're doing the same market research, or buying the same market reports as everyone else (or using the same consultancy for advice).

Deciding to learn faster or most robustly about your option set is the only way to create information asymmetry. In an asymmetric situation, there are only two sides to be on. As soon as you recognise that the molecule will not self-determine its own fate, you know it is not symmetrical: you need to pick sides.

Report