Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research Session 4-2 Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research : The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s ODI-OM (석사 1학기) Eun-ji Lee

INDEX 1. Introduction 2. The firms in the case study 3. Test of inter-firm differences 4. Conclusion 5. Discussion 6. Reference

01. Introduction 생각해 볼 문제 In-house scientific research 란 무엇인가? External scientific knowledge 를 활용하는 것이 중요한가? External scientific knowledge 을 활용할 때의 문제점은 무엇일까? 기업이 외부 과학적인 지식을 활용하기 위해 어떤 역량이 필요할까?

01. Introduction 연구의 배경 및 목적 The public nature of science may lead to the simplistic conclusion that firms can take advantage at no cost of the information produced by academia. This paper offers empirical evidence that in-house scientific raises the ability of the firms to take advantage of “Public” science. This paper focuses on the relations between the in-house scientific research of the pharmaceutical firms and external scientific knowledge.

02. Case Study [1/4] Case Features Merck & Eli Lilly Highly research-intensive firms with strong in-house scientific capabilities. Bristol-Myers Firms with strong marketing assets competitive position in non R&D-intensive products; It invested heavily in research to enter the market for patented drugs. Squibb & SmithKline Firms with good in-house research However, their marketing position relies on the one major product. Rorer A medium-sized firm with modest in-house research.

02. Case Study [2/4] Merck Eli Lilly Superior in-house research skills. An internal organization of research : Research divided into 12 areas. The story of Mevacor : It illustrates the effectiveness of a research organization. : Merck’s skills in building new scientific findings upon available science. Eli Lilly Highly research-intensive firms. Eli Lilly is investing both in equipment and in learning the new technique. Although some of the information was available to everyone, Eli Lilly was better equipped to perform the research needed to develop the final product.

02. Case Study [3/4] Bristol-Myers Squibb Bristol-Myers had strong marketing capabilities, but a modest research base. It was specialized in health care and consumer products. It took important steps to become a major research-oriented group. However, market performance did not show a significant improvement. Squibb Squibb had a good research base, and internal scientific skills. Despite Capoten’s success, Squibb’s position was not completely safe. Squibb was a “One-drug-company’  The 1989 merger integrated two major complementary assets.

02. Case Study [4/4] SmithKline Rorer SmithKline is an example of necessary improvement to a product based on a competing company. Experts speculate that this is largely due to the fact that they lack the ability to perform the necessary research. The main point is that they did not continue to try and make their products better. Rorer Rorer is a medium-sized firm with modest in-house research. The company had very aggressive and risky strategy. Eventually they were bought by Rhone-Poulec.

03. Test of inter-firm differences This section uses Regression procedures using data for the largest 14 US companies. PAT (patents) is the number of successes. SP is the number of scientific papers, RD is R&D expenditures. Results : βrd & βsp are positive and significant What does it mean?

04. Conclusion 연구의 결과 Case studies of a few large US drug manufacturers show that firms with better in-house scientific research programs have exploited more effectively outside scientific information. Statistical analysis reinforces this conclusion. Using data on the 14 largest US-based drug manufacturers, the author found that company patents are positively correlated with the scientific publications of the firms.

04. Conclusion 연구의 장, 단점 연구의 장점은 기업 내부 연구에서 연구개발 능력 뿐 아니라, 외부의 공개된 정보도 활용할 수 있는 능력도 필요하다는 점을 기업에게 환기시킬 수 있다는 것이다. 연구의 단점 Q1. 연구의 사례가 특정 산업, 특정 국가에 한정되어 있는데, 결론이 일반화 될 수 있는가? Q2. 통계적 분석에서 고려한 변수들이 적절한가? (추가, 변경, 삭제할 변수가 있는가?) Q3. 통계적 분석의 결과, (다른 모든 조건이 동일 할 때) Scientific Paper가 증가하면 혹은 R&D Experience가 증가하면, Patent가 증가한다. 항상 그런 것일까?

05. Discussion 외부의 지식을 통합할 때, 어떤 역량이 기업의 성공에 도움이 되는가? 외부의 지식을 통합할 때, 어떤 조직적 역량이 구축되어 있어야 할까? 외부의 지식을 활용할 역량이 부족한 기업은?

05. Discussion [1/3] 외부의 지식을 통합할 때, 어떤 역량이 기업의 성공에 도움이 되는가?  외부의 지식을 통합할 때, 기업은 이를 내재화하는 흡수능력(absorptive capability)이 있어야 함. 흡수능력 학습능력 통합능력 활용능력 학습능력 : 기술과 그 기술의 성과를 이해하는 능력. 통합능력 : 기존 자원/역량과 결합하여 새로운 통합 자원/역량을 구축하는 능력. 활용능력 : 새로운 상품/서비스를 개발하는 능력.

05. Discussion [2/3] 외부의 지식을 통합할 때, 어떤 조직적 역량이 구축되어 있어야 할까? 아이디어 정찰자(scout)와 연결자(connector) 아이디어 정찰자 : 기업 외부에서 새로운 지식/기술을 탐색하여 발굴함. 아이디어 연결자 : 발굴된 아이디어/기술들을 평가하고 선별하여 내부 개발로 이어질 수 있도록 연결함. NIH신드롬 (Not invented Here Syndrome)을 극복해야 함.

05. Discussion [3/3] 외부의 지식을 활용할 역량이 부족한 기업은? External Scientific 은 누구에게나 접근이 가능한 “Public”한 성격을 가지고 있지만, 그것을 탐색하고 평가하고 관리하며 흡수할 수 있는 역량이 필요하다. 외부의 지식을 활용할 역량이 부족한, 즉 연구기반이 부족한 기업들이 외부의 지식을 활용하는 방법에는 무엇이 있을까?

06. Reference Gambardella, A.(1992). Competitive advantages form in-house scientific research – The US pharmaceutical-industry in the 1980. Research Policy, 21(5), 391-407 김언수, 김봉선(2009). Knowledge Search, Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation Speed. 전략경영연구 제 12권 제 1호, 2009.6, 1-24 (24pages) KCI등재 한국산학연협회 http://www.auri.or.kr/ http://wind1237.blog.me/140155602129 DBR 전문이 나와있는 블로그 [MIT Sloan Management Review] Creating Employee Networks That Deliver Open Innovation 개방형 혁신:외부 아이디어 ‘정찰자’와 ‘연결자’를 활용하라 DBR 93호(2011.11.15) / Eoin Whelan·Salvatore Parise·Jasper de Valk·Rick Aalbers http://www.dongabiz.com/Business/Strategy/article_content.php?atno=1203070701&chap_no=1

Q & A

Thank you