Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
- Chapter 8
HUFS
IME
Table of Contents
OPENING CASE : The XenoMouse OVERVIEW REASONS FOR GOING SOLO - Availability of Capabilities - Protecting Proprietary Technologies - Controlling Technology Development and Use - Building and Renewing Capabilities ADVANTAGES OF COLLABORATING
TYPES OF COLLABORATIVE ARRAGEMENTS - Strategic Alliances - Joint Ventures - Licensing - Outsourcing - Collective Research Organizations
CHOOSING A MODE OF COLLABORATION & MONITORING PARTNERS
HUFS
IME
2. If Abgenix chooses collaboration, would it be better off licensing ABX-EGF to the pharmaceutical company or forming a joint venture with the biotech company? 3. How does Abgenixs decision about collaborating for ABX-EGF impact its prospects for its other drug development projects?
HUFS
IME
- After spending 7 years and $40 million in research and development, Abgenix had created a very special mouse. The XenoMouse was a strain of genetically engineered mice capable of producing antibodies with human protein sequences.
- These antibodies had great potential for treating human illnesses, including cancer, arthritis, and organ transplant rejection .
- Major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies were lined up to license access to XenoMouse, and the stock market was so enthusiastic about Xeno Mouses prospects that it drove Abgenixs market capitalization up to $3 billion by 2000.
HUFS
IME
- First, it licensed pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies the rights to use XenoMouse to develop antibodies for a specific disease target the companies had identified. (Average fees before commercialization ranged from $7 million to $10 million, royalties were 5 to 6 percent of sales)
- Second way of deriving revenues was to develop its own drugs through early develop and market the drug the rights to stages of testing and then license to another company. - One of Abgenixs drug development programs, ABX-EGF had eradicated human cancer tumors from every test mouse in which the tumors had been injected. - Abgenix had to make some important decisions about whether, and how, it would use partners to further develop the ABX-EGF antibodies. (handing-off option, joint venture option, solo development option)
HUFS
IME
HUFS
IME
- Abgenix and the biotech company would split the cost of developing ABX-EGF.
- The two companies would then share the profits if the drug proved successful.
- Recognizing that Abgenix had already done significant work on the program, the biotech firm agreed to make some additional up-front payments to Abgenix.
HUFS
IME
- This option meant that Abgenix would need to develop the in-house capabilities to bring the product through the testing and regulatory process.
- By late 2001, management at Abgenix was leaning toward developing the drug in-house and also had plans to build a large manufacturing facility. - Abgenix was burning through its cash quickly, and after the stock market had soured in 2001, cash had gotten harder to come by. - Adding still more urgency to the situation was the fact that heavy hitters such as Genentech and AstraZenca were also developing their own drugs targeting the EGF pathway.
HUFS
IME
Overview
Firms frequently face difficult decisions about the scope of activities to perform in-house, and whether to perform them alone as a solo venture or to perform them collaboratively with one or more partners. Collaboration can often enable firms to achieve more, at a faster rate, and with less cost or risk than they can achieve alone.
Collaboration also often entails relinquishing some degree of control over development and some share of the expected rewards of innovation, plus it can expose the firm to risk of malfeasance by its partner(s).
HUFS
IME
- If a firm has all of the necessary capabilities for a project, it may have little need to collaborate with others and may opt to go it alone.
- For example, in the 1970s Monsanto was interested in developing food crop seeds that were genetically modified to survive strong herbicides. (Roundup Roundup Ready soybeans) Protecting Proprietary Technologies - Firms sometimes avoid collaboration for fear of giving up proprietary technologies. - Furthermore, the firm may wish to have exclusive control over any proprietary technologies created during the development project.
HUFS
IME
HUFS
10
IME
ADVANTAGES OF COLLABORATING
Collaborating can enable a firm to obtain necessary skills or resources more quickly than developing them in-house. Given time, the company can develop such complementary assets internally. Obtaining some of the necessary capabilities or resources from a partner rather than building them in-house can help a firm reduce its asset commitment and enhance its flexibility. (Product life cycles shorten, High speed technological change) Collaboration with partners can be an important source of learning for the firm. One primary reason firms collaborate on a development project is to share the costs and risks of the project. Firms may also collaborate on a development project when such collaboration would facilitate the creation of a shared standard. EX) WAP stands for Wireless Application Protocol
HUFS
11
IME
ADVANTAGES OF COLLABORATING
The National Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) of 1984, collaborative research between firms had been restricted by antitrust regulation - From 1985 to 2003, more than 900 research joint ventures were registered in the NCRA database (see Figure 8.1)
- Worldwide, use of technology or research alliances has more than doubled since 1980 (see Figure 8.2)
- As firms forge collaborative relationships, they weave a network of paths between them that can act as conduits for information and other resources. engine of innovation
HUFS
12
IME
- Even firms that have similar capabilities may collaborate in their development activities in order to share the risk of a venture or to speed up market development and penetration. - Alliances can enhance a firms overall level of flexibility.
- Alliance relationships often lack the shared language, routines, and coordination that facilitate the transfer of knowledge.
HUFS
13
IME
Capability
Capability Transfer
Complementation
Thomson-JVC
Aspla
HUFS
14
IME
- Joint ventures are a particular type of strategic alliance that entails significant structure and commitment.
- The capital and other resources to be committed by each partner are usually specified in carefully constructed contractual arrangements, as is the division of any profits earned by the venture. Licensing - Licensing is a contractual arrangement whereby one organization or individual obtain the rights to use the proprietary technology of another organization or individual. - Sometimes firms license their technologies to preempt their competitors from developing their own competing technologies. To imitate
HUFS
15
IME
- Firms might outsource activities to other firms. By 2003, worldwide spending on outsourcing services had exceeded $100 billion.
- Contract manufacturing allows firms to meet the scale of market demand without committing to long-term capital investments or an increase in the labor force thus giving the firm greater flexibility. Collective Research Organizations - In some industries, multiple organizations have established cooperative research and development organizations such as the Semiconductor Research Corporation or the American Iron and Steel Institute. - Many of these organizations are formed through government or industry association initiatives. Its purpose was to promote collaboration among industry, government, and academic organizations.
HUFS
16
IME
Solo Internal Development Strategic Alliances Joint Venture Licensing In Licensing Out Outsourcing Collective Research Organizations
Varies
Varies
Yes
Yes
Yes
HUFS
17
IME
Partner selection
- Resource fit refers to the degree to which potential partners have resources that can be effectively integrated into a strategy that creates value. - Strategic fit refers to the degree to which partners have compatible objective and styles. Partner Monitoring and Governance
HUFS
18
IME