The Power of Combinative Capabilities: Facilitating the Outcome of Frequent Innovation in Pharmaceutical R&D Projects

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to investigate how organizations organize the early phases of research and development (R&D) projects in the pharmaceutical industry to achieve frequent innovation. The investigation was designed as a qualitative multiple case study. The analysis identified a standardized projectification of the preproject phases, leading to certain conflicts, such as a severe tension between dynamic, project, and multiproject capabilities, which hamper frequent innovation. Optimizing combinative capabilities to balance the capabilities triumvirate can provide powerful leverage and boost frequent innovation.

Enhancing Potential and Realised Absorptive Capacity: Macro–micro Dynamic Integrative Design

“…In the current investigation, the concept of engagement architecture is developed and proposed to ensure superior transformation and exploitation of new knowledge. I adapted the concept of "enterprise architecture" from information technology and have redefined it into business management practice (Giachetti, 2010;North et al, 2004;Spewak and Hill, 1992) and combinative capabilities (Kogut and Zander, 1992;Biedenbach, 2011) under the notion of organisational configuration of internal organisation and external linkage (Tidd, 1997(Tidd, , 2001 to synthesise and apply current and acquired new knowledge and competencies to generate new application (Kogut and Zander, 1992;Biedenbach, 2011). The original concept was used to ensure organisational effectiveness and good governance.…”

“…Thus, I have defined engagement architecture as the structural-designed mechanisms of organisational configuration on internal organisation and external linkage (Tidd, 2001) that are used as a basis process system for energising the internal drive of existing and new knowledge, resources, and capabilities. The engagement architecture process encompasses a cross-function of task design and combinative capabilities (Kogut and Zander, 1992;Biedenbach, 2011) building with particular focus on the embedded employee into the creative process that comprehensively helps a firm to promote knowledge assimilation to the next level of knowledge creation, referred to as transformation and exploitation.…”

“…Comprehension, however, creates new knowledge and requires the delicate ability of a firms mechanism to recognise two apparently incongruous sets of information and to combine them to reframe the firms definition of competitive strategy (e.g., Christensen et al, 1998;Biedenbach, 2011). Therefore, I have theorised that engagement architecture will enhance organisational routines and capabilities toward creativity, which will enable the firm to enhance its realised absorptive capacity.…”

Synchronization of Innovation and Vehicle Projects: Proposal of a Management Tool at Renault SAS

“…According to the literature, if synchronization appears to be difficult, it may come from the way in which innovation projects are managed. Most companies try to manage innovation projects in the same ways they manage engineering projects, but as Biedenbach () says: “Projectification of the pre‐project phase may be counterproductive for innovation.” Companies tend to implement strict evaluations, predetermined criteria, and refuse to accept the uncertainty produced by innovation projects. Keegan and Turner () said: “there is too much of an academic approach to innovation” and this can stifle an innovation project.…”

How Pharmaceutical Industry Employees Manage Competing Moral Commitments

“…To date, however, qualitative research has not shed much light on the values that drive industry employees. Instead, qualitative studies of the pharmaceutical industry have focused on industry employees' views about corporate social responsibility in general (Zaharia and Ghenghea [Mladin] 2011; Lee and Kohler 2010) and specific aspects of pharmaceutical strategy and policy such as facilitating and financing innovation (Biedenbach 2011), responding to new scientific paradigms (Dingel et al 2012), conducting strategic clinical trials (Eisenstein et al 2008), engaging with consumers (Hemminki, Toiviainen, and Vuorenkoski 2010), protecting intellectual property (Horikawa, Tsubouchi, and Kawakami 2009), regulating industry activities (Laeeque et al 2006), contending with globalisation (Wertheimer and Norris 2009), and facilitating good clinical practice (Wang et al 2010). …”