Behind the Tech: Nils Picker on Building EVIGATOR, Evidence Generation Planning, and Bringing his background in Economics into Market Access

We’re going Behind the Tech to spotlight the team behind our integrated approach, combining strategic consulting with purpose-built technology to help clients plan and execute projects with speed, scale and precision.

First up is Nils Picker, Project Manager and Senior Consultant, who’s been leading the development of EVIGATOR. Built with direct input from clients, EVIGATOR supports integrated evidence generation from the ground up making complex planning simpler, faster, and more connected.

Hi Nils! Can you tell us a bit about yourself and your role at GIPAM. What do you focus on, and what drives your work?

Hi! I work at GIPAM as a project manager and senior consultant, specializing in market access strategy building and real-world evidence generation. I primarily manage projects that combine data analysis with strategic insights to facilitate evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. On a daily basis, my role involves a mix of project management, data synthesis, and strategic consulting—helping clients navigate complex healthcare environments by generating and interpreting real-world evidence.

One of the aspects I enjoy most is driving the realization of new software solutions, like EVIGATOR for example, that can support and partly automate strategy building for evidence generation, data synthesis, and analyses. Bringing together analytical rigor with innovative technology is something I find particularly exciting, as it has the potential to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making in healthcare.

Coming from an economics background, what drew you to this field? Your path is quite different from the traditional biological sciences route. What made you interested in research and market access, and how has your background shaped your approach?

I was drawn to healthcare by the complexity of decision-making and the role of evidence in shaping health technology assessments. My interest in counterfactual impact evaluation naturally led me to market access and evidence generation, where data informs treatment value and reimbursement policies.

My economics background has also given me a strong analytical foundation to assess patterns in real-world data and identify causalities. It enables me to take a more structured approach to building market access strategies and optimizing evidence generation to align with regulatory requirements and economic constraints.

You’ve been instrumental in building EVIGATOR. What was the goal—and how has it evolved? 

Building EVIGATOR has been an exciting journey, driven by the need for a more structured and efficient way to develop integrated evidence generation plans and identify data gaps when preparing for health technology assessments. From the start, the goal was to create a platform that simplifies complex coordination  efforts, by ensuring that evidence strategies are comprehensive, data-driven, and aligned with payer and regulatory expectations.

One of the biggest challenges was balancing flexibility and standardization. We know that every market access strategy has unique requirements, but we wanted to create a structured framework that could be applied across different disease areas, treatment settings, geographies, and regulatory landscapes. Another challenge was ensuring that the platform could integrate multiple data sources and study designs—from clinical trial data to real-world evidence—while keeping the user experience intuitive and practical.

I’m particularly proud of how EVIGATOR has evolved into a tool that not only streamlines study planning, but also allows its users to map out evidence needs systematically, identifies gaps early, and helps them optimizing their data collection strategies.

If you had to describe your experience at GIPAM in three words, what would they be?

Innovative, Pragmatic, and Data-driven

You work closely with clients. What do they tend to find most valuable in those engagements?

One thing people might not realize about working closely with clients in real-world evidence generation is how much of the process is about strategic alignment rather than just delivering data. Clients often expect a straightforward analysis plan, but what they find most valuable is the structured, strategic thinking that goes into ensuring their evidence supports both market access and clinical expectations to support the value proposition of their products.

What has been the most rewarding project you’ve worked on so far? Whether it’s a complex challenge you solved, a big breakthrough, or a client success story, what stands out?

A project that standout to me involved supporting a client in navigating a highly complex evidence generation challenge for a novel therapy in an ultra-rare disease. They were facing significant uncertainty about how to meet payer expectations across multiple markets. By systematically mapping out their evidence gaps, leveraging real-world data sources, and refining their strategy iteratively, we helped them build a compelling case for reimbursement.

The moment their therapy secured access in key markets was a great validation of the strategic and analytical work we had done together.

GIPAM is always evolving. What’s something exciting on the horizon that you’re looking forward to? Any upcoming developments, whether in EVIGATOR, research, or market access, that you think will have a big impact?

One of the most exciting and challenging developments on the horizon is the ongoing implementation of the European-wide Joint Clinical Assessment – JCA. This  fundamentally changes how comparative evidence for novel therapies is evaluated across EU member states, creating both opportunities and complexities for market access.

At GIPAM, we’re preparing for these changes by refining our approaches to evidence generation and submission strategies. In terms of EVIGATOR, we’re exploring ways to enhance its capabilities to better support clients in navigating these regulatory changes. This includes integrating more dynamic planning functionalities, improving scenario analysis features, and ensuring that users can efficiently align their evidence generation tactics with JCA requirements.

Finally, if you could give one piece of advice to someone looking to break into this field from a non-traditional background, what would it be?

Embrace the strengths of your background and find ways to apply them to healthcare. Coming from economics, I focused on how analytical thinking and impact evaluation could enhance evidence-driven decision-making in public health and market access. Be curious, ask the right questions, and continuously seek to learn from experts in adjacent fields. A non-traditional path isn’t a disadvantage—it’s an opportunity to bring fresh perspectives and create innovative solutions.

Nils Picker
Project Manager and Senior Research Consultant