How to Develop Collaboration in Drug Development Process: The Role of Professional Service Firms

The innovation chain of the pharmaceutical industry is more and more complex. In particular, a new type of players, the start-ups founded by researchers (Academic Start-ups) have proven to be particularly effective in the first steps of exploring new, radically innovative technologies. These small start-ups miss the financial resources and the industrial experience necessary to embark in the later stage of technologies‘ development. To overcome these limits, what academic start-ups require the most is a collaborative linkage with large biotech and pharma companies. To such end, Business Development Professionals are offering their services to academic start-ups, to set up a collaborative linkage with potential partners. Our article investigates the process of engagement between Academic Start-ups and Business Development Professionals and in particular, we focus on the factors that influence collaboration between the two actors. In order to investigate the development process of collaboration we conducted an exploratory study trough the submission of a semi-structured questionnaire covering different aspects of the engagement process to a sample of business professionals. The study provide first evidences about the main factors that prevent the development of collaborations and provides some suggestions to overcome the challenges that both parts found in the collaboration process

From commercialising intellectual property to facilitating open innovation: the evolution of UK biotechnology incubators

This paper investigates the changing landscape of biotechnology incubators in the UK and evidences their evolution from 1999 to 2017. We highlight the changing policy environment for biotechnology incubators and begin to investigate the evolution of UK biotechnology incubators from facilities that primarily support the commercialisation of intellectual property derived from universities to facilities that reuse former pharmaceutical research and development laboratories and collocate with operational pharmaceutical companies. This study uses two desk-based surveys that provide snap-shots of 21 biotechnology incubators taken in December 2012 and December 2017. The surveys provide a detailed examination of the characteristics of UK biotechnology incubators and their tenant companies. We observe the appearance of biotechnology incubators with an economic regeneration remit, funded by and working in partnership with regional government (BioPark Hertfordshire & BioCity Nottingham). We also observe the appearance of corporate biotechnology incubators (Akcomak, 2009) co-located on operational pharmaceutical research and development sites with an open innovation remit e.g. Astra Zeneca (Manchester), GlaxoSmithKline (Stevenage) and Boots (Nottingham). We propose that regional and national policy initiatives and changes in the business model of large pharmaceutical companies have been the main drivers for the evolution of biotechnology incubators in the UK

Uncertainty in innovation in the biotech-pharmaceutical industry

Biotechnology, just like other dynamically growing branches of industry, has been very rapidly changing. Disruptive innovations arise from time to time. Since this is a very high risk - high benefit industry, and R & D phases often require several hundred millions of dollars, the participants seek to minimize and share risk. In case of biotechnology the assessment of risks (uncertainties) in the technological development is becoming an increasingly difficult task to solve. This is especially true in a rapidly changing turbulent environment, where environment and its knowledge changes from day to day, where in addition to small ones, radical innovations are typical as well. Understanding the necessary parameters is becoming more and more uncertain, thus also becoming limited. There is a huge literature on technological uncertainty just as there is on risks of financial issues. My main problem with this is that there is a strong inclination to believe that uncertainty can always be successfully modelled by quantitative risk assessment (qRA). In contrast to this, a wide range of environmental studies puts emphasis on the non-predictable risk. (Think of the the management consequence of non-predictability, the needed precaution.) A small biotech company has two alternatives for survival: finding a protected market, where, drawing on resources from outside, it can become influential, or by concentrating on cooperation, solving a partial task, working as part of a cluster, becoming an importer of knowledge

Spatial concentration in the Irish pharmaceutical industry: the role of government intervention and agglomeration economies (NIRSA) Working Paper Series. No.28

This paper examines the spatial pattern of the pharmaceutical industry in Ireland and in particular the drivers accounting for spatial concentration in the industry.1 Spatial concentration indexes indicate a particularly high level of spatial concentration in one of the industry’s sub-sectors, namely, drug substance production. This high level of concentration has been attributed to the operation of agglomeration advantages, notably localisation economies. Based on interview data and secondary sources, a detailed investigation of the spatial dynamics and location factors involved suggests that these advantages have played, at most, a relatively limited role and that the concentration of the industry in and near the two particular urban centres in question has largely been driven by government intervention, notably environmental and regional planning policy and the related spatially selective provision of well-serviced industrial sites and infrastructure

Management of Technological Innovation in Developing and Developed Countries

It is widely accepted that technology is one of the forces driving economic growth. Although more and more new technologies have emerged, various evidence shows that their performances were not as high as expected. In both academia and practice, there are still many questions about what technologies to adopt and how to manage these technologies. The 15 articles in this book aim to look into these questions. There are quite many features in this book. Firstly, the articles are from both developed countries and developing countries in Asia, Africa and South and Middle America. Secondly, the articles cover a wide range of industries including telecommunication, sanitation, healthcare, entertainment, education, manufacturing, and financial. Thirdly, the analytical approaches are multi-disciplinary, ranging from mathematical, economic, analytical, empirical and strategic. Finally, the articles study both public and private organizations, including the service industry, manufacturing industry, and governmental organizations. Given its wide coverage and multi-disciplines, the book may be useful for both academic research and practical management

Facteurs de survie et de croissance des entreprises de biotechnologies au canada

RÉSUMÉ Le domaine des biotechnologies est relativement jeune, ce qui se traduit par une méconnaissance du fonctionnement de ce dernier. De surcroît, le modèle prépondérant dans ce domaine de pointe basé sur la science nécessite une contribution non négligeable de l’université, de la science et des technologies qui y sont développées, afin d’évoluer et de croître. La collaboration doit donc jouer un rôle important afin de faciliter le transfert de connaissance entre les différents partenaires. En outre, de par la complexité de la connaissance impliquée et l’importance des validations nécessaires étant donné son impact sur le vivant, la biotechnologie évolue dans une classe à part où les concepts répandus ailleurs dans l’économie méritent d’être étudiés en de plus amples détails. Par ailleurs, les leçons apprises de cette étude peuvent contribuer à mettre en place les bons outils pour d’autres domaines de pointe, par exemple les nanotechnologies, en plein essor au Québec. La contribution de cette recherche consiste donc à identifier les facteurs de survie et de croissance des entreprises œuvrant dans le domaine des biotechnologies de façon à recommander des modifications et améliorations au support à ces entreprises afin d’en améliorer la performance. Certains aspects comme la collaboration, la R&D, la propriété intellectuelle (PI), la gestion des produits et le financement sont analysés. Sachant que la collaboration est primordiale au transfert de connaissance et que ce transfert est dans une industrie hautement innovante, ceci soulève d’autres questions quant aux stratégies d’innovation. Comment la protection de la PI et la R-D favorisent la survie et la croissance ou encore comment la maturité de la structure innovante favorise la survie?Les données utilisées proviennent des quatre enquêtes de Statistique Canada sur le développement et l’utilisation de la biotechnologie qui ont été liées entre elles et jumelées à certaines données du Registre des entreprises de façon à pouvoir mesurer les taux de survie et de croissance de ces entreprises. Les résultats montrent l’importance de la collaboration à des fins d’acquisition de connaissance pour la survie et la croissance des entreprises. De plus, la vulnérabilité des entreprises de biotechnologie à la phase de recherche clinique est mise en relief ce qui se répercute sur la phase de commercialisation, cependant une fois passée cette période de vulnérabilité les entreprises avec plus de produits en production ou en commercialisation ont plus de chance de croître. La course aux brevets semble se faire au détriment de la firme alors que les aspects financiers ont peu d’impacts sur les firmes. L’analyse de la croissance montre aussi des effets non-linéaires où les firmes qui brevètent de façon massive sont désavantagées.----------ABSTRACT This study aims to determine the factors that influence the survival of biotechnology firms in Canada and of firm characteristics on the growth of all biotech firms in Canada. Certain attributes, such as collaboration, research and development, intellectual property, product management and financing are examined. The fact that collaboration is essential to knowledge transfer and that this transfer is crucial raises important questions about innovation strategies. How are intellectual property, research and development intensity and a certain maturity of the innovative structure beneficial to firm survival? Similar considerations apply to financial and government support. Within a domain characterised by knowledge transfer and intellectual property protection, how do firms protect their assets when trying to raise funds particularly within alliances? The study is based on the responses to the four Biotechnology Uses and Development Surveys (BUDS) of Statistics Canada that were linked to one another to build a quasi-longitudinal database. Our research finds that firms that collaborate for exploration purposes have better chances of survival than others and grow faster. The acquisition of knowledge through collaboration seems to be essential to innovation in the biotech industry. Results also suggest that a larger number of patents decrease the probability of survival. The analysis of growth factors shows non-linear effects that also suggest that high intensive patenting firms are disadvantaged. As patents are an essential appropriation tool in the biotech industry, this result suggests that the patent race represents a burden for enterprises because it requires a lot of financial and human resources. Investigation of the product development process shows that clinical research also requires a lot of resources, which results in the fact that firms enter the production and commercialization stage in a weak position, which may then cause firms to exit. In addition, some firms with products on the market seem to stop their R&D efforts and do not renew their products, which further exacerbates exit. However, more firms have products in production or in the market and more firms have a chance to grow

The UK's sectoral system of biotechnology drug innovation: structure, networking and knowledge production

The drug discovery and development subsector lies at the heart of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. However, previous studies have not distinguished this subsector from the industry as a whole. Little detailed analysis has looked at the fIrms that discover and develop new therapies. From a perspective of the Sectoral Systems of Innovation, this thesis aims to address this important gap in knowledge by looking at the structure, clustering, knowledge production and networking in the drug discovery and development subsector, and to stress the relevant policy implications. This study intends to objectively examine the best available indicators for the knowledge produced by this subsector and industry dynamics, therefore a broad design of methodology was chosen. Data was collected from government databases, scientific databases, commercial databases, industry associations and companies' websites, concerning the subsector's structure, clustering and concentration, research and development (R&D) investments, product pipelines, scientific publications and citations, patent publications, and alliance agreements. This study indicates that the drug discovery and development subsector was geographically clustered. The finding further reveals this subsector's hierarchical structure and divergence in strategy development. This thesis also suggests that the focuses of knowledge production in this subsector were changed when partners changed. Moreover, in arguing that this subsector featured massive knowledge production and expanding collaboration with other actors of the innovation systems, the analysis questioned the notion that domestic industry would benefit much from the successful knowledge production of this subsector, because much of the knowledge produced by this sector was going abroad through commercial licensing, and through mergers and acquisitions (M&As). The data of this study also indicated that the strategies of companies are co-evolved with its position within the networking and industry structure

The UK's sectoral system of biotechnology drug innovation: structure, networking and knowledge production

The drug discovery and development subsector lies at the heart of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. However, previous studies have not distinguished this subsector from the industry as a whole. Little detailed analysis has looked at the fIrms that discover and develop new therapies. From a perspective of the Sectoral Systems of Innovation, this thesis aims to address this important gap in knowledge by looking at the structure, clustering, knowledge production and networking in the drug discovery and development subsector, and to stress the relevant policy implications. This study intends to objectively examine the best available indicators for the knowledge produced by this subsector and industry dynamics, therefore a broad design of methodology was chosen. Data was collected from government databases, scientific databases, commercial databases, industry associations and companies' websites, concerning the subsector's structure, clustering and concentration, research and development (R&D) investments, product pipelines, scientific publications and citations, patent publications, and alliance agreements. This study indicates that the drug discovery and development subsector was geographically clustered. The finding further reveals this subsector's hierarchical structure and divergence in strategy development. This thesis also suggests that the focuses of knowledge production in this subsector were changed when partners changed. Moreover, in arguing that this subsector featured massive knowledge production and expanding collaboration with other actors of the innovation systems, the analysis questioned the notion that domestic industry would benefit much from the successful knowledge production of this subsector, because much of the knowledge produced by this sector was going abroad through commercial licensing, and through mergers and acquisitions (M&As). The data of this study also indicated that the strategies of companies are co-evolved with its position within the networking and industry structure