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.
