Opinion piece: Biotechnology's growth–innovation paradox and the new model for success

10.5912/jcb38 ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Baker

Biotechnology companies are increasingly challenging traditional pharmaceutical companies as the discoverers, developers and marketers of drugs. The biotechnology sector, however, is facing a paradox. The sector's strength has been based on companies' innovation abilities while the sector's future success will depend on growth. The traditional pharmaceutical business model, however, may not be the best for biotechnology companies to emulate. Instead, biotechnology companies may be better served by transforming themselves into product-driven companies with a centre of innovation and a network of third parties or capability providers that can supply elements such as development, manufacturing and sales.

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne Nicol ◽  
Johnathon Liddicoat ◽  
Christine Critchley

The orthodox business model of many drug discovery and development companies centres on adding value to early-stage discoveries prior to engaging with large pharmaceutical companies to bring products to market. Anecdotal observations suggest some companies are moving to a ‘virtual’ business model - instead of employing in-house scientists, a skeletal management team runs the company and out-sources all research and development. This article presents a novel method to determine whether companies are virtual, based on author bylines in peer-reviewed journal articles. Applying this method to Australian companies in this sector, the size of the cohort identified as virtual was much larger than anticipated, around 52%. The accuracy of this method has been verified statistically using interview data. This article discusses the value and limitations of this method, positing that it can be used to analyse industry and policy implications that may result from widespread adoption of the virtual model


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur A Boni

In this book review and accompanying commentary and Addendum, we focus on 5 principal topics/major themes that are of interest for our readership, with a focus on framing the translation of transformative technology into a platform business model in biopharma.  We focus on: 1) the behavioral and personal side of the story of the academic scientist, in this case the principal “code breaker” – Jennifer Doudna; 2) the innovation/technology transfer models, including team building appropriate for successfully translating technology from the academic laboratory into the private sector; 3) the IP considerations needed for broad commercialization and dissemination of pivotal, platform inventions in biopharma; and, 4) framing the issues surrounding the ethical discussion related to use in patients associated with a transformative, gene based technology like CRISPR. We also include an Addendum that covers, 5) Some pertinent, concluding comments on the importance of high–performance, diverse teams for founding, building, and growing successful biotechnology companies.


1969 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Friedman

In the relatively short history of the biotechnology industry, new business models have emerged every few years. Some have been little more than short-lived marketing or investment-attraction devices, whereas others have had endured as viable options. Given the dramatic changes in the economic climate and potentially the regulations affecting biotechnology, is it time for a new business model?A SHORT HISTORYFirst there was the FILCO, or fully integrated life science company, business model. This model, employed by some of the first biotechnology companies, positioned firms to capture the revolutionary advances of biotechnology and to build large vertically-integrated companies. Companies like Amgen and Genentech were able to fulfill this endpoint, but many other companies were not so fortunate. Another early model was to improve existing products, rather than to build an entire franchise around discovering and commercializing new ones. This model is exemplified by Alza, which was founded to improve medical treatment through controlled drug delivery and focused on improving existing drugs rather than developing new ones. This same model is still employed today, and shares some similarity with the technology platform business model, where companies focus on developing technologies that can be sold to other R&D firms, rather than independently developing consumer applications.Newer business models did not replace the older ones, but rather enabled new firms to focus on the unique environment in which they were founded. Examples include the hybrid model that combined product development with a technology platform, which could be sold or licensed to others, and the no research, development-only model that as a derivative of the specialty pharmaceutical model, saw newly founded companies buying drug leads off of other companies to complete late-stage clinical trials. These models enabled new firms to meet the respective needs of risk-averse and cash-rich investors.WHERE ARE WE NOW?I've previously written that the global economic crisis has been (and still is) transformative for the biotechnology industry. The aforementioned biotechnology business models rose to prominence in conditions that favored them. For example, the hybrid model emerged in a funding drought and was favored as it enabled companies to build internal revenue streams while still maintaining the possibility to realize the upside of product sales.What are the factors influencing biotechnology companies today? In the United States, beyond the general economic climate there are still unresolved questions about the availability of early stage financing, the ability to recruit foreign workers, and – post-commercialization – data exclusivity, generic biologics and the potential for price controls. Internationally, some nations are still undergoing dramatic economic reorganizations, while others are making significant investments in building biotechnology R&D capacity.So, the question remains: Is the biotechnology industry ready for a new business model, and is there a business model that can accommodate the myriad domestic challenges faced by many countries while addressing the increasing globalization of activities?


2022 ◽  
pp. 92-116
Author(s):  
Andrea Altundag

The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the application of advanced data analytics in the domain of strategic procurement and its effects on processes, people, and on the procurement business model itself. Advanced data analytics are generally accepted as being one of the key enablers for organisations to build their capabilities to adapt quickly and navigate through volatile business circumstances successfully. Strategic procurement is in a pivotal position in a network of external suppliers and internal stakeholders, and thus ideally positioned to benefit from the introduction of advanced data analytics. However, to date, the application of these technologies has been limited, and clear evidence of benefits delivery is yet to be demonstrated. This chapter draws upon research results from a detailed case study in the aviation industry to assess the benefits of advanced data analytics in the strategic procurement function and puts forward a maturity model of relevance to both researchers and procurement professionals.


2018 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 00125
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Niklewicz-Pijaczyńska

The aim of the paper is to analyze the use of existing legally protected solutions an. publications made available through patent systems for the development of further biotechnological inventions. For its implementation, was conducted research based on the so-called patent citations of two kinds - to literature and previously published, other patents. For the needs of the paper, technical documentation of 88 patents in the resources of the Polish Patent Office and Espacenet was analyzed. The study includes 40 Polish biotechnology companies with significant innovation activity. The results of the conducted research allow to formulate two conclusions. First, the knowledge obtained from patent resources plays an important role in the innovation process of inventions in the biotechnology sector. Secondly, this knowledge is characterized by a high degree of internationalization, first of all are cited foreign inventions and source literature, domestic citations appear relatively rarely. Among observed references, citing American achievements plays a dominant role – this applies to both literature and inventions, which suggests that the US patent system is the main source of patent knowledge for Polish biotechnology companies.


10.5912/jcb3 ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W Grupp ◽  
Leslie Gaines-Ross

As biotechnology companies mature, the focus of their activities shifts from a research-and-development orientation to a business model based on marketed products that deliver revenue and earnings. Companies are thus striving to occupy key positions at every stage of the industry's evolving value chain, covering each step from gene identification to patient care. The management of corporate reputation must therefore be based on the new biotechnology business model, which takes into account the shifting industry value chain. The authors discuss how the function of corporate communications in biotechnology is changing along with the industry itself, as well as the key components of a biotechnology company's reputation in the current environment. Additionally, a case study of Cephalon, Inc., is presented to illustrate how positive and negative events can affect corporate reputation in the biotechnology industry. The authors conclude with some observations on tactical solutions for building and managing corporate reputation in today's biotechnology industry.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice Heitzmann

The pharmaceutical industry has been revolutionized by the new biotechnology companies during the last years. Facing patent expirations, lack of innovation and depleting product pipelines, the important structures turned to the funding of small biotechnology companies aimed at research and intellectual property securization. Alliances are primordial in the current economic climate. The market growth was questioned for years, but biotechnology companies shifted to product-driven strategies and the market performance has been verified during the last decade. Researchers still face challenges in transforming their science into businesses. They need to be fully equipped, and accompanied towards the right objectives to ensure the sustainability of the market as a whole.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Navia Zhang ◽  
Meredith Haskins

The 2019-nCoV coronavirus has significantly impacted the macroeconomic outlook for countries across the world. The biotechnology sector experienced a relatively positive stock price outlook, which corroborates the trends exhibited by biotechnology stocks in previous pandemics such as SARS (2003) and AH1N1 (2009). During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine roll-out rates have been more efficient than in any other pandemic, as companies today are more experienced in combating the time constraint to create vaccines. Gilead Sciences Inc. saw its shares rise 18% after developing the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, 'remdesivir'. In contrast, AstraZeneca's shares fell 2.28% in 2021 after its vaccine underwent investigations into blood-clotting side effects and subsequent suspension from several countries. Companies developing mRNA vaccines like Moderna, BioNTech, and Pfizer witnessed surges in share prices ranging from 10% to 20%. Many newer biotech companies such as Genexie, Sanovi, OnoSec, and Vaxart have also developed vaccines for COVID-19. Share prices are more volatile for these less established companies. This paper observes how developing new technologies, staging clinical trials, obtaining FDA approvals, gaining publicity, and several other complex factors have profound impacts on the stock prices of these biotechnology companies.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 1110-1130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Jaakson ◽  
Hannele-Marianne Aljaste ◽  
Piia Uusi-Kakkuri

Purpose The relationship between organisational innovativeness (OI) and company performance has been studied extensively, and the associations found have mostly been positive. However, as OI is a multidimensional concept, more nuanced research is needed to identify which dimensions of innovativeness companies should focus on. The purpose of this paper is to longitudinally investigate the links between dimensions of OI and company financial performance, based on a sample of Finnish and Estonian pharmaceutical biotechnology companies. Design/methodology/approach Interviews inquiring about OI were conducted in 26 biotechnology companies and then their performance was measured over three subsequent years using objective financial data. Due to limited sample size, qualitative comparative analysis is employed in addition to non-parametric statistical tests. Findings Overall, OI did not decisively influence financial performance in the studied sector. There were, however, dimensions related to human resource policies that appeared to have more potential to positively impact financial performance, whereas the strategic dimension was actually aversive to certain performance indicators. Research limitations/implications The study limitations are a small sample, possible managerial bias in the assessment of OI, and focus on financial measures only. Practical implications The study demonstrates that OI is a multidimensional construct and not all dimensions play an equal role in financial performance. Innovation-supportive human resource policies and strategic flexibility contributes to financial performance in the pharmaceutical biotechnology sector. Originality/value The contribution of the study is the analysis of a specific sector with a longitudinal approach by bridging quantitative and qualitative approach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document