Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Judicious selection of in-licensed products and technologies may increase fi rms'
innovation outputs, lead to greater market power, or create favorable experience and
reputation effects. Such positive developments can make a fi rm more attractive as a
potential partner. There is evidence that in-licensing begets more in-licensing. As it
starts realizing increasing value from its investments, the fi rm itself may become
more confi dent and proactive in seeking out additional collaboration arrangements.
However, when inputs from multiple sources must be coordinated, potential down-
sides are overreliance on outside ideas and creative talent as well as the risk of
overextending the fi rm's integrative and managerial capacity. A closer scrutiny of
licensing dynamics will make an interesting topic for empirical research.
Researchers can also examine the impact of excessive in-licensing on the future
prospects of the fi rm. How likely is it that a fi rm may become an easy prey for a
takeover bid if most of its products are being sourced from elsewhere? What are the
precipitating factors for acquisition compared to other forms of collaboration in the
pharmaceutical industry? What are the differential effects of acquisition on the fate
of the acquired fi rm's pipeline of drug candidates? Is there evidence that the rate of
FDA approvals for two fi rms may undergo systematic changes when one gets
acquired by the other, and what inferences can be made about the tacit knowledge
and the quality of these fi rms' proprietary R&D before the acquisition? All these
questions seem worthy of examination.
The decision to engage in a specifi c mode of collaboration, the factors behind the
choice of a partner, the ultimate impact of that partnership on the individual fi rms'
innovation and market outcomes, as well as the market performance of the drug(s)
that are central to the partnership would constitute another fertile area for explora-
tion. Also, it will be interesting to fi nd out what makes a fi rm appealing as an alli-
ance partner, how alliances evolve, and how they interact within more complex
networks where unintended knowledge spillovers can occur. Estimating the costs of
an alliance, teasing out its total added value, and understanding how this added
value is created and appropriated will also be illuminating.
Future research could also look into the implications of using fundamental
knowledge generated by nonprofi t research institutions on the secrecy and proprie-
tary rights demanded by private fi rms, if they are joined in an alliance. The signaling
value on industry participants of organizational changes enacted through partner-
ships such as licensing, co-marketing agreements, alliances, mergers, or acquisi-
tions could constitute another fecund area of study. Elucidating the most common
pathway fi rms follow with the different modes of collaboration, as well as pinpoint-
ing directions amenable to optimization, can be worthwhile.
More research is needed to identify the environmental, structural, and strategic
determinants that can affect drug innovation outcomes. What are the differential
effects associated with fi rm size? How do the latest state-of-the-art technologies for
drug design and discovery affect innovation productivity, FDA approval rates, sales
performance, or the fi rms' market valuation? Are there particular technology-related
bottlenecks to be resolved or underutilized process synergies to be considered from
an organizational or managerial perspective?
Search WWH ::
Custom Search