Search results

This paper aims to construct a process model of business founding in the biotech industry.

An inductive method is used, and five case studies analyzed. Data are coded by applying Gioia’s method.

Aspirant entrepreneurs conduct resource analysis and industry analysis to formulate research and development targets. They perform transactions and networks because they require resources, and they then deploy and coordinate these resources. Such coordination generates activities with social and financial impacts.

The results are specific to the biotech industry. A future study could examine business founding processes in other industries (e.g. entertainment, fashion, public utilities and sport). Additionally, the paper argues that during the founding process entrepreneurs show little concern for knowledge-sharing risk, as they want to collaborate to implement their ideas. Quantitative papers could test the consequences of such behavior.

The process model provides insights into aspirant founders on how to start a business in the biotech industry.

The paper shows: the differences between the founding process in the biotech industry versus other industries; and the shape of the Bower–Burgelman model in the context of biotech business founding. The paper delineates how private companies discover competencies in the public sector; a model of technology transfer from public to private sector; entrepreneurs’ absence of risk perceptions regarding knowledge-sharing during founding; and how conferences can serve as vehicles for benchmarking in networking.

The Internet is rapidly changing the way in which information is displayed and accessed on a global level. Taking into consideration the new communication opportunities offered on line, businesses will be forced to alter both their internal and external communication strategies, and be prepared to flow with the changes. One of the sectors that can benefit from the global expansion of Internet communications is biotechnology. In order to understand the on‐line corporate communication model used by biotechnology companies, the Internet sites of 600 firms were accessed and analysed. The data presented highlight the type of on‐line messages, their function (marketing or PR oriented), the targeted audiences, and the level of on‐line interaction provided by the company’s site. Finally, the interpretation of results concludes with an integrated on‐line communication model for biotechnology companies.

Biotech companies are generally faced with the paradoxes of simultaneously managing growth and innovation, as well as addressing explorative and exploitative aspects of innovation. Scholars have urged them to re‐evaluate their business model. The purpose of this paper is to explore how biotech companies in emerging economies address these paradoxes, focusing upon the nascent biotech industry in India, in order to investigate their growth and innovation patterns, as well as identify the challenges that they may face.

A qualitative data collection, using in‐depth interviews with representatives of organizations that deal directly with improving the quality of the business environment for biotech industry in India, as well as biotech entrepreneurs and leaders were undertaken. A total of 13 interviews provided insights related to innovation and growth that is discussed in the paper.

Data indicate that Indian biotech companies are ambidextrous and have managed to transcend the aforementioned paradoxes by developing and maintaining distinct organizational capabilities. They were found to pursue an integrated model of efficiency and innovation and utilize both exploitative and explorative aspects of innovation to fuel growth and innovation. The authors also found evidence of some of the characteristics of the “India Way”, proposed by Cappelli et al.

The authors conclude that Indian companies offer an opportunity for learning for American biotech companies with respect to building new competencies and balancing growth and innovation in today's competitive environment.

Despite being labeled as the “industry of the decade”, biotechnology has been neglected in technology and innovation literature. It is hoped that the paper's findings will generate interest in the study of biotech industries in emerging economies, to help scholars develop interesting new theoretical models of innovation and aid managers in coping with the innovation and change paradoxes that they are faced with in developing new products and services.

Biotech companies stand as key actors in pharmaceutical innovation. The high risk and long timelines inherent with their R&D investments might hinder their access to funding, potentially stifling innovation. This study aims to explore into the appeal of biotech companies to capital market investors, whose financial backing could bolster the growth of the biotechnology sector.

This paper uses a dataset of 774 US publicly listed biotech firms to investigate their risk and return characteristics by comparing them to pharmaceutical firms and a sample of matched non-biotech R&D-intensive firms over the sample period 1980–2021. Tests show that the conclusions remain consistent across diverse methodological approaches.

The paper shows that biotech companies are riskier than the average firm in the market index but outperform on a risk-adjusted basis both the market and a matched group of R&D-intensive firms. This is particularly true for large capitalization biotech, which is also shown to provide a diversification benefit by reducing the downside risk in past crisis periods.

This paper provides insight relevant to the current debate about the overall performance of the biotech industry in terms of policy changes and their impact on small, early-stage biotech firms. While small and early-stage biotech firms are playing an increasing role in scientific innovation, this study confirms their greater vulnerability to financial risks and the importance of access to capital markets in enabling those companies to survive and evolve into larger biotech.

Emerging biotechnology firms rely on a network of socio‐economic partnerships that can be classified as “interimistic” or close, collaborative but relatively short‐lived. Few studies have assessed the importance of relational governance to the performance of these partnerships. The purposes of this research were to determine the effect of relational governance on the performance of financial partnerships and to compare biotechnology manager assessments of their financial and non‐financial partnerships.

Interviews were conducted with managers of emerging biotechnology companies and lead investors in Canada, France and Germany. Relational governance was assessed by relational norms such as flexibility, information sharing, solidarity and fairness. Performance was assessed by overall effectiveness and partnership benefits. First, the contribution of relational governance to partnership effectiveness and benefits was examined. Second, for the financial partnerships, the perceptions of both biotech managers and lead investors were compared. Third, the biotech manager perceptions of their financial and non‐financial partnerships were compared.

Relational governance is positively associated with performance. Communication (information sharing) was most predictive of partnership performance. Biotech managers view their financial partnerships as being less relational than do their lead investors. Also, biotech managers view their financial partnerships to be less relational than those with their non‐financial partners.

The findings extend our knowledge of the positive influence of relational governance from longer lasting exchanges to “interimistic” technology partnerships. The communication of pertinent and timely information is particularly relevant for both biotech managers and lead investors and can allay fears of opportunistic behaviour and develop trust and commitment.

To evaluate the science and technology (S&T) development framework within Estonia, a small transition country, and its biotechnology sector.

In the general overview the main concepts, actors and environment of S&T system in the triple helix context are analyzed. The empirical study explores the general research and development (R&D) environment of Estonia and particularly the biotechnology sector by mapping the actors, strategy of companies (all small and medium‐sized enterprises – SMEs), innovation processes and related expenditures of the public sector and private businesses.

The study results indicate the ratio of basic and applied research, and product/service development in the gross R&D funding structure in Estonia to be 3:3:4; in the biotechnology sector this ratio is 11:5:1. The structure of research expenditure in the public sector mostly reflects the success of Estonian biosciences rather than the success of biotech as a business sector.

Ways for improving the S&T system are suggested.

Mapping the actors, and measurement of the structure of the R&D expenses in the Estonian biotech sector and in SMEs in particular.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the phenomenon of mergers and acquisition (M & A) in high-tech sectors with a special focus on biotechnological firms. Recent years have witnessed an impressive wave of M & As, but these operations, despite their popularity, have produced mixed results for their stakeholders and presented no systemic vision.

The paper is descriptive and the result of a secondary data-based research. Methodologically founded on the works of Rossi et al. (2011, 2013) and following an extensive literature review on M & A processes in high-tech sectors, the paper analyzes the dynamics, trends and attributes biotechnological M & As.

The biotechnology sector, over the economically turbulent past few years, faced a distinct difficulty in attracting significant investor capital. Traditional pharmaceutical companies with sufficient cash from their existing sales but facing a dried-out product and patent pipeline have acquired innovative, but cash-poor biotech firms. The findings indicate that the trends in the biotech industry make consolidation in this sector inevitable. For acquiring firms, therefore, it will be necessary to realize a rigorous process of strategic target identification, due diligence and unified post-merger integration as the only way to create a sustainable shareholder value and high firm performance.

The limitations of the paper are a consequence of its very nature, i.e. the fact that it is a descriptive, secondary data-based research. Further, empirical research is therefore necessary to test the findings, to refine the contextual parameters involved and to prescribe target-specific action.

The value of the paper stems from its definition of the link between the biotech industry attributes and M & A activities, consequently offering a valuable theoretical basis for empirical development and practical application, as well as a context for prescribed actions and processes.

This research explored the literature regarding successful leadership practices and how these practices form the organizational context that leads to success in the biotechnology industry. Dominate themes emerged in general leadership strategies, leading research and development scientists, moving ideas from research to the consumer and the culture of research versus practice. Themes include leaders must be adaptable and able to lead effectively in a dynamic environment. Leaders need to consistently articulate the vision throughout the organization. Leaders need to be strategic decision-makers and flexible enough to allow the vision to adjust to the culture and the environment. Leaders need to communicate effectively and create an organization where communication flows efficiently at all levels. Leaders need to recognize clear cultural differences between functional groups, and they need to empower employees at all levels to make strategic decisions. Leaders need to know which decisions must be retained as his or her sole responsibility.

Purpose – The objective of this chapter is to examine and provide new perspectives on the contributions of public and private R&D to biotech crop improvement.

Methodology/approach – The chapter examines a set of topics that have affected the way that research is undertaken on plant germplasm improvement and how it has changed with the genetically modified (GM) trait revolution.

Findings – Although the basic science providing the foundations for GM crops was undertaken in the public sector, GM traits and GM crop varieties have been developed almost exclusively by the private sector. The biotech events leading to GM traits are currently being developed largely by five companies – all having ties to both the chemical and the seed industries. The GM crop revolution started in North American in 1996 and has spread slowly to the largest developing countries that have large agricultural sectors, including Argentina, China, Brazil, and India, but not to Europe or Japan.

Practical implication – To shed new light on the economic reasons for private sector dominance in GM crop varietal development in selected crops but not in others.

Social implication – Shows how GM traits have contributed to technical change and declining real food prices.

The authors have developed an educational model that operates at the undergraduate level and aims to produce graduates who can comfortably operate in the gulf between the laboratory bench and the commercial marketplace. The purpose of the paper is to describe the course, approaches, activities and initial outcomes of the Bachelor of Biotechnology Innovation course at Queensland University of Technology.

Students undertake “hard science” subjects and business subjects on entrepreneurship, innovation and market development. Synthesis of these disparate disciplines is driven through formation of virtual companies that serve to contextualize subject content and provide start‐up company experience across the four‐year course. Student companies design biotechnology products and processes and can progress their product through initial research and development phases or undertake an industry‐based internship working as a team on initial concept projects. This focused, team‐based approach to learning is contrary to traditional science courses that focus on the individual.

Outcomes include graduates of high quality that have moved into positions associated with commercialization and technology transfer where previously a PhD and MBA were required qualifications. Other measures of course success include acceptance and promotion of the new course by business, academia and government.

Postgraduate courses provide the most common pathway for assisted self‐development of entrepreneurial skills in science and engineering graduates. In contrast, this model aims to train entrepreneurs in technological disciplines at an undergraduate level in a framework where innovation and enterprising behaviour are embedded in the fabric of the degree.