Isn't re-coding the organizational DNA viable only for smaller set-ups?

Bruce Booth makes some really radical suggestions to altering the way a big-pharma R&D set-up could work, primarily by way of re-coding the organizational DNA - the optimist in me loves the game-changing propositions, but the cynic in me fears a big-pharma is way too big to present itself to re-coding..... 

My comment:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However long-term, I feel the inversion of periphery into core is something that sounds too Utopian for any block-buster-strapped-big-pharma-headed-by-a-recently-appointed-turnaround-artiste to consider doing - Laying off scientists & shutting down sites, though a lot messier, is much quicker and in corporate speak, efficient!

Having said that, I do believe this inversion is indeed happening in some fashion as the disruptive model of shutting down big-pharma R&D sites does release hell a lot of under-utilized scientific talent that in many cases ends-up getting far more productive by reinventing themselves as 'Out-sourced drug developer' and/ or 'Spin-off Biotech' each class of enterprise working in synergy with the other.

Just as genetically engineering a large mammal vis-a-vis' a single cell organism is a completely different devil, re-coding organizational DNA works only for smaller set-ups and hence the only way innovation has to change in big-pharma is through a disruptive shake-up that allows cloistered talent-islands to drift-apart and reassemble in mutually cohesive clusters.

Finally, it's surprising just how long its taking pharma to make that elusive paradigm shift in its approach to innovation.... here's a link wherein a lot of heated discussion happened way back in 2008 & nothing much is still different as on date.

Peak-Oil 2020 just got itself a mega top-up & the globe can look forward to balmier climes :-)

One of those small diversions from my routine - below's the comment I posted on a Linkedin article "OilBoom 2.0 – An American Dream Updated" by Christof Rühl, Chief Economist at BP. 

I was essentially answering the questions (in italics) raised by Christof in the closing paragraph of his article...

My comment:

-------------------------------------

What triggered it?.... Accident? ....The North American resource base?.... Markets?

The trigger is a no-brainer really, the need for fuel independence & dominance (Markets?) in that order... in any order..........Accident? probably the technique of fracking was indeed one. Given the need & the refined technology to exploit the resource base, yet again we dreamed-in the improbably hypothetical terraforming into reality

What are the implications?

It sounds like;

• Peak-Oil 2020 just got itself a mega top-up &
• The globe can look forward to balmier climes :-)

And - will it happen elsewhere?

Considering the environmental precedents being set proactively by the USA, this trend of course will catch-up soon around the world, anti-fracking doomsayers notwithstanding.

The start-up investing winds, they are a-Changing OR are they?

In his latest, 'SuperLP' Chris Douvos  writes about the fears of an impending VC apocalypse....., okay to start with, in silicon valley primarily triggered by the capital deployment in start-ups far outpacing funds raised by venture capital firms, essentially affecting that someone else is gaming the system rather than VCs themselves..

Given they appear only once in a blue moon, I couldn't really let go a SuperLP article without a comment... here goes what I posted on his article 'Scents in the Air'

My comment
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments

I am wondering if the issue with "capital raised by VC's increasingly falling short of capital invested into start-ups" is about true of all start-up hubs & not just Silicon-valley AND, that probably in general it’s true of all VC activity across the globe (tho' i do understand this data is of NVCA and for USA)

Out of the entities you mentioned, I see the following two as the key contributors to this skewed ratio;

1) CVC: The emerging aggression of CVCs whose enthusiasm to invest is in equal measure helped/ influenced by not having a limitation of capital to deploy AND by their necessity to shortening the product introduction cycle in face of an increasingly unproductive in-house innovation (think... a top-10 pharma major investing in start-up biotech with just one pre-clinical asset....)

2) Angel: The recent market regulatory changes indicate (JOBS et al) that the government is attempting to bring down the dependence of start-ups on the VC's - primarily by way of increasing the available angel base & encouraging HNWIs to risk their money a lot more freely than before.

Surely the above aspects do suggest why there's a scent of fear in the winds blowing through VC quarters.

I personally feel that these newer sources of capital need to establish their longevity & consistency before the start-ups can forget about serenading the VC for funds – particularly given that non-financial companies tend to be a lot more impatient with IRR cycle-times and HNWIs a lot more prone to gravitate towards less complex and shorter-term alternative investment options.

Essentially, IMHO what goes around comes around & VC as a source of start-up capital would remain a lot more relevant in the long-term

Posted by: Murali Apparaju | July 22, 2013 at 01:20 AM