Five questions · 3 minutes · Discovery through late-stage
Will your plan survive the room?
Whether you are mapping your first discovery programme, preparing for IND-enabling studies, or defending a late-stage development plan — five questions will tell you where the gaps are before someone else finds them.
This is a free self-assessment. It takes 3 minutes and gives you an honest read on where your plan stands. If the results concern you, the R&D Plan Pressure Test is the next step — a full written assessment from Michael Collins covering timelines, investment assumptions, and risk management, with clear recommendations on what needs to change to reach investor and C-suite readiness.
1 of 5
Area 01 · Timeline credibility
How rigorously have your development timelines been benchmarked against comparable programmes?
A
Fully benchmarked — grounded in comparable programme data with documented assumptions and scenario modelling
B
Partially benchmarked — compared to some published data but not systematically
C
Internally estimated — based on team judgement rather than external benchmarks
D
Not benchmarked — timelines have not been formally compared to external data
Area 02 · Investment assumptions
How defensible are the cost and resource assumptions underpinning your plan?
A
Fully defensible — grounded in vendor quotes, industry benchmarks, and documented assumptions with sensitivity analysis
B
Reasonably defensible — key costs are estimated but some assumptions would be hard to justify under detailed scrutiny
C
Internally generated — cost assumptions are based on team judgement without external validation
D
Not yet formalised — investment requirements have not been systematically worked through
Area 03 · Risk management
How explicitly has your plan identified, quantified, and addressed the key risks?
A
Explicitly — key risks are identified, probability-weighted, and each has a defined mitigation or contingency plan
B
Partially — major risks are identified but not all are quantified and mitigations are not fully defined
C
Informally — risks are acknowledged in conversation but not systematically documented in the plan
D
Not addressed — the plan does not include a formal risk assessment
Area 04 · Development options
How many meaningfully different development paths did you evaluate before committing to your current plan?
A
Three or more — we built and compared distinct alternatives with different risk, cost, and speed profiles
B
Two — we had a preferred option and evaluated one genuine alternative
C
One — the science pointed clearly to one path and we built the plan around it
D
None formally — the current plan is what the team proposed without structured evaluation of alternatives
Area 05 · Investor & board readiness
If a demanding investor or board member challenged your plan in the room tomorrow, how confident are you?
A
Fully confident — we can walk through the complete rationale: options considered, data used, risks mitigated, investment justified
B
Mostly confident — the core rationale is solid but some assumptions would be hard to defend under detailed questioning
C
Uncertain — the reasoning exists but is not explicitly documented and relies on the team being in the room
D
Not confident — we know this is a gap and the plan would not hold up to hard questioning today