Nmblr Scout Step 3: Competitive Benchmarking

1. To set up competitive benchmarking for success - there are two additional tasks that need to be actioned before members can contribute to the analysis

• The default is for all the competitors that were selected to appear. You can be selective about which competitors you wish to evaluate for each category (outcomes, technology and innovations). And for outcomes - which competitors are meaningful for the different stakeholders. Use the ‘select competitors’ pencil icon to hide the competitors that are not relevant.
• Specifically for outcomes, you need to select which of the outcomes are relevant for each of the three key stakeholders [patients, HCPs and payors]. Use the ‘manage’ outcomes button on the top right hand side to ‘hide’ outcomes that are not relevant for any one stakeholder.
• Over time you are able to continue to manage the outcome, technology and innovation criteria using the ‘manage xx’ button on the top right(add or hide).
• All members to add evidence against each criteria. The evidence is categorised as giving the competitor an advantage or is a limitation for that competitor.using the post-it notes.

2. Invite members to contribute to outcomes benchmarking (by stakeholder and competitor)

What we’re doing

• Capturing proof (do so using post-it notes) of how each competitor performs on outcomes that matter to HCPs, patients, and payors, then using that proof to assign a consistent rating.
• For every rating, we need evidence—not opinions—because different stakeholders might have a different value perception against different outcomes.
• All members should be providing evidence.
• Add evidence first, then rate based on how well the competitor performs against each outcome [an advantage could be great results that are credible because of the quality of the data, whereas a limitation could be a good result but that is not supported by sufficient/high quality data].
• Repeat for each stakeholder.
• Rate only after adding the evidence. Countries will be rating based on their country perspective whereas global and regional members will rate based on all the evidence that is available.
• A clear statement of what the evidence shows (e.g., superior efficacy, reduced burden, better adherence, fewer AEs).
• The strength of proof (e.g., pivotal RCT, RWE, meta-analysis, guideline change, payer policy shift, field signal).
• The stakeholder lens: why this matters to that stakeholder (e.g., prescriber confidence, patient experience, payer affordability/impact).
• Without evidence, ratings become inconsistent across markets and functions.
• Evidence allows you to compare competitors “like-for-like” and defend conclusions in decision forums.

3. Invite members to contribute to technology benchmarking

What we’re doing

• Documenting the technologies competitors use against each technology dimension to optimise the current game or reframe the game, then rating how material/disruptive they are.
• Document/capture the technologies competitors are using against each dimension then rate its likely impact.
• All members should be providing evidence and rating.
• The team should rate only after adding the evidence. Countries will be rating based on their country perspective whereas global and regional members will rate based on all the evidence that is available.
• Proof the technology exists and is progressing (pipeline stage, trial endpoints, delivery/device specs, manufacturability/scaling signals).
• Evidence of impact on real-world use (site-of-care fit, administration time, monitoring burden, training needs).
• Signals that it could create future opportunity or threat (i.e., disruptive potential).
• Technology claims are easy to overstate; evidence keeps the team grounded.
• Evidence helps you spot game-changing shifts early—not after they hit the market.

4. Invite members to contribute to innovations benchmarking

What we’re doing

• Identifying whether competitors create value through improvement (better within the current paradigm) or change (a new paradigm that rewires value).
• For each competitor and against each innovation domain, name the shift, show evidence, and explain how it changes what stakeholders expect.
• We’re not cataloguing features—only innovations that change the rules of the game.
• The team should rate only after adding the evidence. Countries will be rating based on their country perspective whereas global and regional members will rate based on all the evidence that is available.
• Evidence of novelty and traction (adoption signals, ecosystem partners, diagnostic requirements, guideline/HTA discussion, reimbursement pathway changes).
• Evidence of how it reshapes value (new endpoints, new care settings, different proof standards, new power dynamics.
• Innovation is where teams tend to speculate. Evidence keeps it decision-useful.
• It helps you anticipate shifts in stakeholder expectations before they become “table stakes.

Assessment checklist

• Have you captured evidence against each competitive dimension (outcomes, technology, innovation) before assigning ratings—so that the benchmark is consistent, defensible, and decision-ready.