The allocation of resources for R&D in the world's leading pharmaceutical companies

A survey of 45 leading pharmaceutical companies has been used to investigate aspects of their Research and Development (R&D) strategies, the allocation of resources including the financing and staffing of R&D functions, and the numbers of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) in the development process. The companies included the top ten by R&D expenditure in 1992 (top 10 companies). The study identified characteristics of leading companies and provided comparative data. The principal findings are that:
top ten companies had the highest R&D to sales ratios, progressed more NCEs after the drug candidate selection stage in 1992 and had achieved a greater geographical decentralization of staff than any other company.
Japanese companies differed in some respects from western companies, even those of a similar size. They operated with smaller clinical and regulatory affairs functions and made detailed plans for R&D expenditure further ahead than western companies, on average, more than 5 years compared with 3 years.
an increase in aggregated R&D staffing had occurred between 1990 and 1992 in 33 companies for which data for both years were available and staff numbers had decreased in only five of those companies.
top ten companies differed from others in their apparent productivity measured in terms of staff or R&D expenditure per NCE after the drug candidate selection stage, utilizing more staff and having greater R&D expenditure per NCE.
The results also appear to indicate early signs of a change in the structure of the industry according to R&D expenditure, which has since become more apparent. There was a distinct polarization by R&D budget size among the respondent companies: five companies were spending $900m or more on R&D in 1992 while the majority of the rest were spending less than a third of that amount.     

The budgeting process for R&D laboratories

The author had been associated with the writing of a short series of case studies into the process by which companies allocate their R&D budgets to individual departments or projects. A key question became the location of responsibility for determining the objectives of work under-taken in R&D, and also responsibility for the allocation of resources in R&D.
The cases revealed that decisions were taken by senior R&D managers at one extreme, and by marketing or production managers at the other, but also most often jointly between the functions with different weightings of authority. The parameter most clearly differentiating between the loci of responsibility was the project duration. This led to the development of a two dimensional diagram correlating the expected remaining duration of the project, with the locus of responsibility for its management.
It is expected that this model which fits current practice into a normative framework will enable organizations to review and adjust their present methods of coping with the complexities of R&D budgeting.     

R&D 'programmes-competencies' matrix: analyzing R&D expertise within the firm

The author suggests that the systematic identification of a firm's technologies opens up the possibility of evaluating, protecting, optimizing, enriching and exploiting these technologies to the full. A firm's technologies fall into two parts: those embodied and exploited in current operations and those evolving from the collective competencies of its R&D staff. The author's aim is to evaluate and describe the firm's R&D competencies.
The identification of R&D competencies proceeds in three steps: tracing the background of the current and past programmes, constructing a programmes/competencies matrix, and deriving an expertise profile. The construction of the matrix is the key activity and requires much care in its execution, if competencies are to be properly defined and truly existing, and if it is to be exhaustive. The author sketches a procedure for constructing a matrix and discusses problems of implementation and draws attention to some of its limitations.
The author claims that such an inventory of expertise could improve the efficiency of the use of the R&D resource, identify a laboratory's strengths and weaknesses, direct R&D into hitherto neglected channels, assist individuals to identify and evaluate their own expertise, justify obtaining funding for building expertise in shortage areas. The method should be considered as a starting point to formulate appropriate strategies to gain access to technology.     

Global R&D management

Abstract
Global R&D management, the management of company R&D effort distributed over different countries, a task that concerns multinational firms, has not been widely studied. The authors have therefore carried out in-depth studies of global R&D conducted by 7 European and 15 Japanese companies. Their objective was to identify 'best practice' and so construct a framework for future research.
The authors' conclusions are as follows. Globalisation, that is decentralisation of R&D, has become a necessity for multinationals as a result of the localisation of competition, of product life becoming shorter than development time, and the need to locate laboratories near sources of new technological know-how.
Because foreign acquisitions often lead to the acquisition of laboratories, questions are raised about how best to integrate them with the administrative practices of the 'home' organization, whether to reorganize them or to close them down. When it is necessary to set up a new foreign-based laboratory deciding its exact location will require the weighing of factors such as whether the activities are to be market or process oriented, where on the R to D scale the activities will be placed, and how far direction of the laboratory's programmes and work will be decentralised.
Global management also demands special attention to the building of an open communication network among the laboratories, the best form of which has yet to be determined. The main concern in human resource management will be how to select and develop an internationally oriented management corps and how to train R&D professionals to communicate across sites.
If globally dispersed R&D laboratories are to be most effectively used then a new framework for their management needs to be developed.     

The importance of internal and external R&D network linkages for R&D organisations: evidence from Singapore

This paper examines the importance of internal and external R&D networks for R&D organisations of multinational firms (MNCs) in Singapore and investigates corresponding R&D management requirements in this context, namely a late-industrialising country in Asia. A unique feature of Singapore is its ability to attract 'high quality' foreign direct investment, involving activities of higher value added and more complex technology without having developed full-fledged R&D activities among its business organisations, thus creating a challenging situation for subsidiary R&D managers, both in the internal R&D organisation as well as in the external research environment. This paper analyses these issues.
Based on in-depth interviews with 53 R&D subsidiaries of MNCs operating in Singapore, this paper identifies internal and external R&D management needs. Through our analysis of data gleaned from these interviews, we found that subsidiary R&D managers need to increase and/or maintain the strategic importance of their R&D site internally within their global corporate R&D organisation. This requires constant upgrading of the technological level at the R&D subsidiary and intense communication with headquarters as well as other R&D subsidiaries. Furthermore, our findings indicate that in the external research environment, subsidiary R&D managers need to create an efficient local network of external players. If these internal and external issues are properly addressed, the R&D subsidiary can effectively contribute to the corporate R&D organisation and be a critical partner in the local research network. Lessons learned from the Singapore experience include the need to develop sufficient local expertise as well as to change the mindset of managers to focus on creativity rather than precise execution.     

The path of R&D efficiency over time

In this paper we investigate the pattern of R&D efficiency in terms of the number of product innovations achieved by firms over time. Using a panel dataset of Spanish manufacturing firms for the period 1990–2006, we follow the innovative performance of R&D active firms and observe that innovation rates change over firms' R&D histories. To explain these facts we propose a model that explicitly acknowledges the twofold composition of firms' R&D expenditures, comprising spending on both physical capital for R&D projects and payments to researchers. We regard this latter component of R&D as a source for dynamic returns to firms' R&D investments. Consequently firms' innovation outcomes clearly depend on how long they have been investing in R&D and also on whether there have been any interruptions in the temporal sequence of R&D activities. Our results suggest that R&D activities exhibit dynamic returns that are positive but at a decreasing rate, and that interruptions in R&D engagement reduce R&D efficiency.     

The impact of EC R&D programmes on corporate R&D practice in Europe: a knowledge-base approach

This paper examines the role of additionality in the impact of EC R&D pro-grammes on firms. It comes from a study of the Impact of the EC Framework Pro-gramme on European Industry, which was sponsored by the Support Programme for Evaluation Activities in Research (SPEAR) of the EC. The argument is that there is an interaction between ie use of additional R&D resources, the organization of the R&D process, and the exploitation of R&D results. The analysis of the R&D process takes place within a framework based on the concept of the knowledge-base of the firm. A number of case studies are discussed and conclusions are drawn as to the impact of the EC Framework Pro-gramme on European firms.     

R&D competition versus R&D cooperation in oligopolistic markets with evolving structure

This paper considers investment behavior of duopolistic firms subject to technological progress. It is assumed that initially both firms offer a homogeneous product, but after a stochastic waiting time they are able to implement a product innovation. Production capacities of both firms are product specific. It is shown that firms anticipate a future product innovation by under-investing (if the new product is a substitute to the established product) and higher profits, and over-investing (in case of complements) and lower profits, compared to the corresponding standard capital accumulation game. This anticipation effect is stronger in the case of R&D cooperation. Furthermore, since due to R&D cooperation firms introduce the new product at the same time, this leads to intensified competition and lower firm profits right after the new product has been introduced. In addition, we show that under R&D competition the firm that innovates first, overshoots in new-product capacity buildup in order to exploit its temporary monopoly position. Taking into account all these effects, the result is that, if the new product is neither a close substitute nor a strong complement of the established product, positive synergy effects in R&D cooperation are necessary to make it more profitable for firms than R&D competition.     

Improving R&D/Marketing relations: R&D's perspective

Abstract
Successful product innovation hinges on close R&D/marketing relationships, especially in technology-based organizations. However, there is evidence that linkage problems are common and when they are not overcome failure is the usual result.
R&D's perspective on what R&D, marketing and senior management can do to improve their relationship with marketing is presented. The recommendations are based on suggestions from R&D directors involved in new product development efforts in 83 technology-based companies. Also presented is how the need for integration has changed over time and where it is going in the future.     

Analytical Instrument R&D Management

Abstract . The paper describes briefly some of the problems faced in the management of R&D in the British Scientific Instrument Industry and an opportunity of re-organization following the merger of several small companies.
The reasons for a hybrid rather than a project orientated or functional organization are given, with special reference to economies of standardization and flexibility of resources resulting from size. The method of resource allocation and project control is outlined and some qualitative conclusions on the results of this approach are drawn.     

International management of R&D: The Swedish Experience

This paper summarizes the results of in-depth case studies of international R&D management in four Swedish multinational corporations. The results suggest that foreign volumes and shares of R&D expenditures are rapidly increasing. Through a rapidly increasing number of foreign acquisitions, foreign R&D laboratories have been added. As part of international rationalization of production, foreign units have been given global product mandates with responsibility both for manufacturing and R&D. In maturing foreign subsidiaries, routine technical activities have often evolved into proper R&D. Tight labour market conditions for engineers in Sweden have made it increasingly necessary to exploit existing technical capacity, regardless of location.
Concurrently, companies face new pressures for international coordination and control of R&D. Coordination is required to reduce product differentiation, to facilitate technology transfer and to ensure the technical and market compatibility of products and components developed at different locations but sold as part of total systems. Drawing on the experience in the four investigated companies, the paper discusses how systems and procedures can be developed to meet the need for coordinated international R&D management.     

Managing innovative R&D teams

Successful R&D groups not only generate innovative ideas, but also transfers these newly created concepts through the organizational system for economic gain. While innovation is not a random process, managers often argue that R&D performance is hard to measure and even more difficult to manage. An exploratory field study into technology-oriented R&D environments determines the principle factors that influence innovation-based performance of R&D teams. The results identify specific barriers and drivers to innovative team performance and provide insight into the type of an organizational environment and managerial leadership that is conducive to innovative R&D team performance. The data further suggest that many of the performance variables have their locus outside the R&D organization. Yet, managerial leadership style, both at the R&D team level and at senior management, has significant impact on creativity that ultimately affects R&D performance.     

Towards networked R&D management: the R&D approach of Sonera Corporation as an example

In this paper the authors delineate the challenges of a dynamic environment to R&D management. The authors build on most recent ideas, such as the dynamic capability view of the firm, as strategic foundation for modern R&D management. Collaboration is emphasized as a meta-capability for innovation. These ideas are merged into a 'Networked R&D Management' approach that emphasizes internal and external collaboration networks as critical for companies operating in a dynamic business environment. The approach is illustrated with ICT industry as an example. The implementation of Networked R&D Management is reflected in the illustrative case discussion of R&D management of Sonera Corporation.     

Economic compensation compositions preferred by R&D personnel of different R&D types and intrinsic values

In order to enhance R&D performance, R&D managers make sure that R&D personnel are satisfied with their compensation, both economic and non–economic . An R&D compensation scheme would consist of many complex factors. In this research, we focus on 'compensation composition' as such a factor for the economic compensation system, i.e., the mix of compensation components such as team (or organization) performance based, individual (R&D personnel) performance based, and fixed (seniority based) portion of economic compensation. As part of non–economic compensation, intrinsic values such as social status and self–actualization perceived by the R&D personnel are influencing their level of satisfaction with the entire compensation system. Another critical factor we consider here is the difference in R&D types: there are three R&D types, i.e., basic, applied , and commercial R&D . We put forth two sets of propositions. First, there is statistically significant correlation among R&D personnel's job satisfaction, performance measurement satisfaction, and compensation satisfaction. Second, depending on the types of their R&D activities, R&D personnel prefer a certain composition of economic compensation. In addition, the relationships are mediated by whether the R&D personnel feel intrinsic values of their jobs.