1 / 8

Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s

2012 Fall Seminar on Technology Strategy . Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Gambardella, A. (1992), Research Policy, 21(5), 391-407 . 2012. 9. 24 박사과정 4 학기 한상연 . Science as a public goods.

umika
Download Presentation

Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2012 Fall Seminar on Technology Strategy  Competitive advantages from in-housescientific research: The US pharmaceuticalindustry in the 1980s Gambardella, A. (1992), Research Policy, 21(5), 391-407 2012. 9. 24 박사과정 4학기 한상연

  2. Science as a public goods • firms can take advantage at no cost of the information produced • by academia and other non-profit research institutions. Ⅰ. Summary(1) • The role of in-house scientific research • a means of absorbing external knowledge( Cohen and Levinthal, 1989) • the price to plug into the outside information network(Rogenberg, 1990) • Focus of Paper • explores whether, in spite of the public nature of science, large US drug • manufacturers have differed in their ability to exploit the public good

  3. The firms in the case studies • Merck : an internal organization of research that resembles academic • departments or other scientific institutions • - peer group evaluation, using external basic research results Ⅰ. Summary(2) • Eli Lilly : investing both in equipment, and in learning the new technique • from Agouron • Bristol-Myers/Squipp : shifting to research-oriented group • - comprehensive agreement with Yale University • - acquired genetic systems and Oncogen, specialized in biotechnology • SmithKline : late R&DInvestment and late performance, Tagamet • - Restructuring in R&D after entering competitor Glaxo’s Zantac • Rorer : Too short periods to invest more R&D • - aggressive strategy to increase the R&D, acquired by Rhone-Poulene

  4. Test of interfirm differences in exploiting public science Ⅰ. Summary(2) • Company patents are positively correlated with the scientific publications • of the firms

  5. Ⅱ. Discussion(1) • The effectiveness of Catch-up Strategy • What does the strategy of Samsung Biologic resemble firms’ one in our • paper? • In the respective of papers in this session, discuss and predict the validity of • Samsung’s strategies • - technology sourcing, cooperation, Joint-Venture, transferring of Informal • Knowledge

  6. Ⅱ. Discussion(2) • The Classification and Segmentation of R&D capability • What’s the difference between Capability of in-house researchand • Absorptive Capacity? • Following the diffusion of Open innovation economy, except capability of • R&D in itself and internalization, • what Is the other capability for innovation of firms? • - focus the ability to investigate the exact demand knowledge • In the point of this paper and others, the strategy of Samsung can not be • effective due to lack of current R&D capability. What are your views on that?

  7. Tessa C. Flatten, Andreas Engelen, Shaker A. Zahra , MalteBrettel(2011), A measure of absorptive capacity: Scale development and validation, European Management Journal , 29, 98– 116

  8. Thank You!

More Related