Search results

The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that contribute to the successful implementation and management of sustainable innovation in research-intensive sectors such as the life sciences industry.

The study was conducted through a combination of two methods. The first was qualitative interviews of 21 sustainability experts and leaders in the life sciences industry who were responsible for implementing sustainable innovation. They were selected through nonprobabilistic purposive sampling. The second method was thematic content analysis using the MAXQDA software.

The study identified that successful implementation of sustainable innovation in research-intensive firms begins with the alignment of the executive vision for sustainability with the business objectives of the research-intensive firm. Furthermore, implementation of sustainability practices is identified as a function of organizational reconfigurations that facilitate purposeful inflow and outflow of ideas and knowledge between internal firm resources and external stakeholders, anchored by the objectives of the research-intensive firm.

The study explicated factors only within life sciences industry based on qualitative interviews. The study offers scope for cross-sector quantitative evaluation.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first studies to systematically delineate the underlying factors that govern successful implementation of sustainable innovation in research-intensive industries, through integration of the resource-based view and stakeholder theory and thereby provide a framework for research-intensive organizations to implement sustainable innovation practices.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the different assessments of a particular industry and its ability to innovative, renew and prosper, but also to look into the underlying assumptions that are hiding behind the systemic approaches utilized in these assessments. The point of departure is an empirical puzzle: one group of studies presents a rather optimistic view of the Swedish life science industry and its ability to economize on research, policy and industrial investments. Another group of studies presents much a darker view, questioning the capacity of new companies to reach economic endurance, as well as the possibility of keeping the actually successful companies within the country. At a first sight it appears as if the two groups of studies are resting on a common theoretical ground: all seem to depart from a systemic innovation perspective that challenges the idea of an independent business landscape.

The difference between the assessments becomes comprehensible once the authors allow for a variety of systemic approaches in innovation thinking. The authors propose an ideal-typical distinction between two types of system perspectives; those that view technology as entangled in its environment and those that view technology as disentangled from its environment. The authors use the national innovation system (NIS) and the industrial network (IMP) approaches to exemplify the two perspectives.

An implication of the study is that the term “systemic perspective” is very broad and encompassing, something that in turn points to the importance of being clear about what the authors mean with a system, but also with what the theoretical assumptions focus on and abstract away from.

The ideal-typical distinction between two types of system perspectives; those that view technology as entangled in its environment and those that view technology as disentangled from its environment. The authors use the NIS and the IMP approaches to exemplify the two perspectives.

Life science innovation is a complex domain of professional work including scientific know-how, regulatory expertise, and commercialization and marketing skills. While the investment in basic life science research has soared over the last decades, resulting in a substantial growth in scientific know-how, the life science industry (and most notably pharmaceutical companies) unfortunately reports a meagre innovative output. In order to counteract waning innovation productivity, new organizational initiatives seek to better bridge and bond existing life science resources. The purpose of this paper is to report a case study of bio venture hub initiative located in a major multinational pharmaceutical company.

Drawing on institutional work literature, an empirical study based on case study methodology demonstrates that new life science collaborations demand both external and internal institutional work to challenge conventional wisdom, making the legal protection of intellectual properties a key factor in the field and that in turn complicates much firm collaborations. Such institutional work questions existing practices and opens up new pathways in life science innovation work.

The bio hub initiative, which in considerable ways breaks with the traditional in-house and new drug development activities located in enclosed R&D departments and in collaboration with clinical research organizations, demands extensive institutional work and political savoir-faire to create legitimacy and operational stability. Not only are there practical, legal, and regulatory issues to handle, but the long-term legitimacy and financial stability of the bio hub initiative demands support from both internal and external significant actors and stakeholders. The external institutional work in turn demands a set of skills in the bio venture hub’s management team, including detailed scientific and regulatory expertise, communicative skills, and the charisma and story-telling capacities to convince and win over sceptics. The internal institutional work, in turn, demands an understanding of extant legal frameworks and fiscal policies, the ability to handle a series of practical and administrative routines (i.e. how to procure the chemicals used in the laboratory work or how to make substance libraries available), and to serve as a “match-maker” between the bio venture hub companies and the experts located at the hosting company.

The case study provides first-hand empirical data from an unique initiative in the pharmaceutical industry to create novel collaborative spaces where small-sized life science companies can take advantage of the mature firm’s expertise and stock of know-how, also benefitting the hosting company as new collaborations unfold and providing a detailed understanding of ongoing life science innovation projects. In this view, all agencies embedded in institutional field (i.e. what has been addressed as “institutional work” – the active work to create, maintain, or disrupt institutions) both to some extent destabilize existing practise and create new practices better aligned with new conditions and relations between relevant and mutually dependent organizations. The empirical study supports the need for incorporating the concept of agency in institutional theory and thus contributes to the literature on institutional work by showing how one of the industries, the pharmaceutical industry, being strongly fortified by intellectual property rights (i.e. a variety of patents), inhibiting the free sharing of scientific and regulatory know-how and expertise, is in fact now being in the process of rethinking the “closed-doors” tradition of the industry. That is, the institutional work conducted in the bio venture hub is indicative of new ideas entering Big Pharma.

This paper aims to identify inducement and blocking mechanisms which impact the development of the life sciences innovation system in Finland. Innovation system analysis of emerging technologies is important for the design of technology-specific innovation policy measures to promote desirable futures

This exploratory study uses a functional technological innovation system analysis framework designed to identify policy goals for emerging technological fields. The data consist of 33 qualitative face-to-face interviews with senior managers and decision-makers. Best practices are identified from the San Francisco Bay Area and the Finnish life sciences innovation system is analyzed in detail.

The Finnish system has a good capability to perform top-level basic research, but the commercial aspect is largely missing because of the lack of business know-how, small size of the domestic market, networking failures, scarcity of funding and poor public image.

The two regions have different scopes which prevents direct comparisons between them.

This study applies the technological innovation system model to the life sciences industry. It provides new information on the characteristics of the industry and factors affecting its dynamics. The results can be applied for policy design by policy makers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of R&D resources in early stage life sciences firms. It looks at how young firms use dynamic capabilities to develop R&D resources.

An in-depth case study approach was used to examine the research questions. It draws on longitudinal data collected from ten life science firms. Data were collected from three rounds of interviews with each case firm. A systematic theme analysis was conducted to analyse the results.

Results from the study indicate that a unique set of past decisions, future opportunities, assets, capabilities, and routines leads to the development of R&D resources. It is evident that scientific breakthroughs, partnership opportunities, the founders’ experience and the firm’s ability to integrate resources and learn from earlier paths are vital to the development of R&D resources.

This study extends the application of the dynamic capabilities framework to early stage life sciences ventures. It also demonstrates that dynamic capabilities can lead to the development of important resources.

The findings from this study provide prescriptive insights for evaluating alternatives on how to develop R&D resources in life sciences ventures.

Life sciences firms are critical to the modern global economy. However, little work examines how young, small life sciences firms develop R&D resources. Moreover, little work uses the dynamic capabilities framework as a lens to holistically examine how small firms develop R&D resources. This study helps to fill those gaps.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how a combination of diverse sources of knowledge is important for generation of new ideas and address how institutional infrastructures and practices support integration of knowledge across organizations in medicine and life sciences.

The paper investigates new product ideas that emerge from hospital and university employees, and looks at the extent of interaction between clinical and scientific environments in the idea generation process. The paper utilizes data about all new product ideas within life science that were reported in South-Eastern Norway in 2009-2011, as well as information about the individuals and teams that had been involved in disclosing these ideas. Interviews with inventors have also been carried out.

Interaction and integration across scientific and clinical domains are common and important for generating new product ideas. More than half of the disclosed life science ideas in the database come from groups representing multiple institutions with both scientific and clinical units or from individuals with multiple institutional affiliations. The interviews indicate that the infrastructure for cross-domain interaction is well-developed, particularly for research activities, which has a positive effect on invention.

The paper uses an original data set of invention disclosures and investigates the hospital-science interface, which is a novel setting for studies of inventive activities.

In this chapter, guest author Dr. Randy Burd discusses the conditions that both promote and hinder innovation in the life sciences. Burd presents his personal observations of how the traditional academic model fails to fully encourage academic innovation, and in doing so illuminates the cultural gap between the academy and industry. He follows this constructive critique of the current system with the suggestion that social entrepreneurship represents a productive middle ground where both traditional bench science flourishes and academic innovation is celebrated.

The purpose of this paper is to examine what strategies the CEOs of research and development (R&D) intensive small/medium enterprises (SMEs) in the life sciences sector carry out in regard to open innovation (OI), as R&D costs continue to rise, placing pressure on innovation managers.

A qualitative study was carried out, consisting of 30 semi-structured interviews with CEOs of small R&D intensive SMEs in the life sciences sector. The authors analysed the key factors identified by the CEOs in relation to their OI strategies.

SMEs adopt a range of OI strategies and collaborations, subject to certain conditions. A multilevel mapping developed from the analysis connects actors to the wider domain, setting the outcomes of the research in context.

This qualitative study provides detailed understandings that could provide the basis for a wider quantitative study that would provide greater coverage of the sector, thus reinforcing the outcomes.

The study will be relevant to practising CEOs who are considering the range of options offered by OI.

While large firms are adopting OI strategies, less is known about the OI strategies developed in SMEs. The study addresses that gap. The life sciences context is also novel.

Science parks are business clusters situated in a particular geographical location, originally conceptualized by local universities, local government and businesses. In recent times, science park stakeholders and tenants are starting to pursue social value and even how to manage. This study aims to clarify the understanding of social value in an innovation ecosystem.

This study combines existing literature studies and concepts, observations in a real-life innovation ecosystem – a Bioscience Park – and interviews of key personnel managing the science park.

Science Park Social Value (SPSV) is a value resulting from interaction among groups and not just the pursuit of a single firm-level goal. SPSV emanates from the firms within the science park in reaction to the demands of the actors or entities within and outside the innovation ecosystem of the science park: internal operations, external stakeholders and infexternal or broader societal impact. In addition to this, the author has conceptualized a framework for social value of an innovation ecosystem, which will require further research.

This paper creates a link between concepts about social value, innovation ecosystem (e.g. science park) and stakeholder theory.

SPSV will be useful for science park orchestrators or managers to manage expectations of social and non-social actors.

Social value of a science park will bring a new light on the stigma that science parks are only money-making ventures and are not in touch with social issues.

This study theorized and researched previously unrelated concepts.

Previous IMP research has shown that innovation benefits tend to gravitate across organisational, company and legal borders. However, OECD and EU policy assume that innovation investments will create benefits in close spatial relation to where these were made. The overall purpose of this paper is to consider how opportunities and obstacles of innovation appear from the perspective of: a national policy actor, its regional mediators and a policy supported and research-based firm engaged in innovation. A specific interest is directed to what interactive aspects that are considered by these actors; in the using, producing and developing settings.

Influenced by the research question and theoretical point of departure the authors investigate what type of interfaces our focal actors recognise in the using, producing and developing settings. A total of 41 face-to-face and phone interviews focusing on each actor’s approach were conducted; 23 interviews in order to investigate the “policy side” of innovation attempts, while 18 interviews have been performed in order to understand a single business actor’s innovation approach.

The study shows that both the national policy agency and the regional policy mediators primarily operate within a developing setting, and furthermore, applies a rather peculiar interpretation of proximity. As long as the developing setting of the innovation journey is in focus, with the task to transfer academic knowledge advances to commercial actors, the proximity aspect is rather easy to fulfil. However, as soon as the producing and using settings of the innovation is taken into consideration, the innovation, if it survives, will gravitate to a producing setting where it can contribute to investments in place.

The study investigates the opportunities and obstacles of innovation; the spatial aspects included, and how these are considered by: a national policy agency, a regional mediator and a policy-supported innovating firm, in order to juxtapose the policy doctrine with the experience of the business actors such policy wishes to support.