Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights...

14
Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Transcript of Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights...

Page 1: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Page 2: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Chapter 8

Collaboration Strategies

Page 3: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-3

• Abgenix spent seven years and $40 million to produce a

genetically-engineered mouse that could produce

antibodies that would treat human illnesses.

• One antibody, ABX-EGF showed great promise for

treating several types of cancer. Abgenix had to decide

whether to:

• License ABX-EGF to a pharmaceutical company which

would do all further testing and commercialization

(bear little risk and receive license royalties)

• Use a joint venture with a biotechnology company to

complete the testing and commercialization (bear

moderate risk and split profits)

• Pursue the ABX-EGF project as a solo venture (bear all

risks and keep all profits)

The XenoMouse

Page 4: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-4

Discussion Questions:

1. What are the pros and cons of Abgenix

collaborating with a partner on ABX-EGF?

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 Abgenix’s decision about

collaborating for ABX-EGF impact its

prospects for its other drug development

projects?

The XenoMouse

Page 5: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-5

Overview

• Firms must often choose between performing

innovation activities alone or in collaboration.

• Collaboration can enable firms to achieve more,

at a faster rate, and at less cost and risk.

• However, collaboration also entails sharing

control and rewards, and may risk partner

malfeasance.

• The advantages of going solo are compared

with those of collaborating, and then different

forms of collaboration are compared.

Page 6: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-6

Reasons for Going Solo

• Whether a firm chooses to engage in solo

development or collaboration will be influence

by:

• Availability of capabilities (does firm have needed

capabilities in house? Does a potential partner?)

• Protecting proprietary technologies (how important

is it to keep exclusive control of the technology?)

• Controlling technology development and use (how

important is it for firm to direct development process

and applications?)

• Building and renewing capabilities (is the project

key to renewing or developing the firm’s capabilities?)

Page 7: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-7

Advantages of Collaborating

• Collaborating can offer the following advantages:

• Obtaining needed skills or resources more quickly

• Reducing asset commitment and increase flexibility

• Learning from partner

• Sharing costs and risks

• Can build cooperation around a common standard

Worldwide

formation of

technology or

research

alliances

varies over

time.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08New

Tech

no

log

y o

r R

esearc

h A

llia

nces

Year

Page 8: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-8

Types of Collaborative

Arrangements

• There are numerous types of collaborative arrangements, each with

its own advantages or costs.

• Strategic Alliances: formal or informal agreements between

two or more organizations (or other entities) to cooperate in

some way.

Doz and Hamel note

that a firm’s alliance

strategy might

emphasize combining

complementary

capabilities or

transferring

capabilities. It might

also emphasize

individual alliances or

a network of alliances.

Page 9: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-9

Types of Collaborative

Arrangements

• Joint Ventures: A particular type of strategic alliance

that entails significant equity investment and often

establishes a new separate legal entity.

• Licensing: a contractual arrangement that gives an

organization (or individual) the rights to use another’s

intellectual property, typically in exchange for

royalties.

• Outsourcing: When an organization (or individual)

procures services or products from another rather than

producing them in-house.

• Collective Research Organizations: Organizations

formed to facilitate collaboration among a group of

firms.

Page 10: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-10

Choosing a Mode of

Collaboration

• Firms should match the trade-offs of a

collaboration mode to their needs.

Page 11: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-11

Choosing and Monitoring

Partners

• Partner Selection

• Resource fit: How well does the potential partner fit the

resource needs of the project? Are resources

complementary or supplementary?

• Strategic fit: Does the potential partner have compatible

objectives and styles?

• Impact on Opportunities and Threats: How would

collaboration impact bargaining power of customers and

suppliers, degree of rivalry, threat of entry or substitutes?

• Impact on Internal Strengths and Weaknesses: Would

collaboration enhance firm’s strengths? Overcome its

weaknesses? Create a competitive advantage?

• Impact on Strategic Direction: Would the collaboration

help the firm achieve its strategic intent?

Page 12: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-12

Choosing and Monitoring

Partners

• Partner Monitoring and Governance

• Successful collaborations require clear yet flexible monitoring and governance mechanisms.

• May utilize legally binding contractual arrangements.

• Helps ensure partners are aware of rights and obligations.

• Provides legal remedies for violations.

• Contracts often include:

1. What each partner is obligated to contribute.

2. How much control each partner has in arrangement.

3. When and how proceeds of collaboration will be distributed.

4. Review and reporting requirements.

5. Provisions for terminating relationship.

Page 13: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-13

Research Brief

Strategic Positions in Collaborative Networks

AbbottLaboratories

BelmontResearchInc

EliLilly&Co

FulcrumTechnologiesInc

IBMCorp

InformixSoftwareInc

PPDInc

TexacoInc

ToshibaCorp

A firm’s position within a

collaborative network

influences its access to

information and other

resources, and its influence

over desired outcomes.

Some of the key aspects of

a firm’s position include

centrality and opportunities

for brokerage. For example,

in this graph, though PPD

Inc. has only three

alliances, it serves as an

important bridge between

the two lobes of the

network, which should give

it important opportunities for

brokerage.

Page 14: Copyright © 2011 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights …contents.kocw.net/KOCW/document/2014/Hoseo/leejongwon4/8.pdf · 2016. 9. 9. · •Abgenix spent seven years and

8-14

Discussion Questions

1. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of

collaborating on a development project?

2. How does the mode of collaborating (e.g., strategic alliance,

joint venture, licensing, outsourcing, collective research

organization) influence the success of a collaboration?

3. Identify an example of collaboration between two or more

organizations. What were the advantages and disadvantages of

collaboration versus solo development? What collaboration

mode did the partners choose? What were the advantages and

disadvantages of the collaboration mode?

4. If a firm decides it is in its best interest to collaborate on a

development project, how would you recommend the firm go

about choosing a partner, a collaboration mode, and governance

structure for the relationship?