you analyse what were the strong and the week points of your trial via self analysis (“lessons learned sessions”) or surveys for stakeholders.
==> some will lead to internal issues that need resolving (resource availability, IMP availability, process flows, workload)…
==> some will lead to external issues that need support (training of teams, communication plans, providing sufficient and correct/needed information, …)
you then link them to your goals (improve stakeholder relationships, improve conduct of trial to get IMP to the subjects who need it earlier, …). If you end up with a lot of issues, you determine which ones crossed the critical path or gave the most “negative impact” on the trial and stakeholders.
this way of structural working will provide a priority list of topics that need to be handled. Once these are chosen you see if you have the correct representatives on the table to really do a thorough in-depth conversation around the defined topic. These are mainly people who have a lot of expertise in the field, have large networks on different levels, can really take your question back “to the field” and provide you with the necessary answers. In order to have a satisfactory feeling in the end, it is very important that all participants know what is expected from them and what you can/cannot offer in return. It needs to be clear that you are working on a short term and long term investment in order not to loose them in the end.
