Advertisement

Consortium-Based Open Innovation: Exploring a Unique and Optimal Model for Regional Biotechnology Industry

  • Shintaro SengokuEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Creative Economy book series (CRE)

Abstract

Developing high-tech start-ups has been embedded into political efforts that require a large, long-term investment whereas the uncertainty of research and development and the business risks are high. In the biotechnology and healthcare field, the emergence of new modalities such as cell and gene therapy and nanomedicine need to be implemented complying multidimensional societal requirements that covers ethics, regulations and adoption by the citizens. Considering these issues, the present chapter aims to explore a unique and optimal innovation model for regional biotech industry in Japan—the research and development consortium from the viewpoints of the theories of organisation on inter-firm collaboration, regional innovation system and intellectual property management. Next, cases of entrepreneurial and innovative activities around drug discovery firms in Japan to date are provided, focusing on the fields of advanced science and technology and the way to develop entrepreneurs and start-up firms from the perspective of sectorial and regional innovation systems. In the third section, in order to specifically examine the challenges and measures for developing drug discovery firms in Japan, a case of newly developed biotech cluster is examined. Conclusively, a view on the direction for boosting biotech innovation suitable to the environment is proposed, with particular foci on two non-technological elements—the design of implementation ecosystem with an R&D consortium and entrepreneurs, and the significance of socioeconomic forms of organisation in order to develop technologies properly with high ethical, regulatory and scientific linkages.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks all the members of COINS for their cooperation to the surveillance and interviews. Several parts of the contents and discussion refer related studies in past thus the author is thankful for the contributions by all the authors herein, and the editors and reviewers for their helpful comments. The studies mentioned in this chapter were financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)/MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research and Japan Science (grant no. 26285084 and 26301022).

References

  1. Aldrich, H. E., & Sasaki, T. (1995). R&D consortia in the United States and Japan. Research Policy, 24(2), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anzai, T., Kusama, R., Kodama, H., & Sengoku, S. (2012). Holistic observation and monitoring of the impact of interdisciplinary academic research projects: An empirical assessment in Japan. Technovation, 32(6), 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anzai, T., & Sengoku, S. (2016). Managing academic interdisciplinary research towards innovation: A resource and communication-based approach. Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avila-Robinson, A., & Sengoku, S. (2017a). Multilevel exploration of the realities of interdisciplinary research centers for the management of knowledge integration. Technovation, 62(63), 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avila-Robinson, A., & Sengoku, S. (2017b). Tracing the knowledge-building dynamics in new stem cell technologies through techno-scientific networks. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1691–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33(10), 1477–1492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergman, K., & Graff, G. D. (2007). The global stem cell patent landscape: Implications for efficient technology transfer and commercial development. Nature Biotechnology, 25(4), 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boder, A. (2006). Collective intelligence: a keystone in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth, B., & Zemmel, R. (2004). Opinion: Prospects for productivity. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 3(5), 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyer, R. (2019). How scientific breakthroughs and social innovations shape the evolution of the healthcare sector. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 89–119). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2003). Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research. IBM Center for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  13. Brandes, O. M., & Brooks, D. B. (2007). The soft path for water in a nutshell. Friends of the Earth Canada & POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
  14. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, P., & Lauder, H. (2001). Human capital, social capital and collective intelligence. In S. Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 226–242). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cabinet Office of Japan. (2016). Japan is back. Available at: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/pdf/2016_zentaihombun.pdf (reviewed on 1 Apr 2019, in Japanese).
  17. Camagni, R. (1991). Local ‘milieu’, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a new dynamic theory of economic space. Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, 121–144.Google Scholar
  18. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School press.Google Scholar
  19. Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128–152.Google Scholar
  21. Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge economies: Clusters, learning and cooperative advantage. Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4), 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crook, J. M., Hei, D., & Stacey, G. (2010). The international stem cell banking initiative (ISCBI): Raising standards to bank on. Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Animal, 46(3–4), 169–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DiMasi, J. A., Feldman, L., Seckler, A., & Wilson, A. (2010). Trends in risks associated with new drug development: Success rates for investigational drugs. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 87(3), 272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doloreux, D., & Parto, S. (2005). Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technology in Society, 27(2), 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dubey, R., & Dubey, J. (2009). Pharmaceutical product differentiation: A strategy for strengthening product pipeline and life cycle management. Journal of Medical Marketing., 9(2), 104–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix–University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development.Google Scholar
  28. Eyo, S. J. (2011). A comparison of biotechnology industry in Japan and other developed countries. Hitotsubashi University Working Paper Series, July 2011.Google Scholar
  29. Federsel, H. J. (2010). Process R&D under the magnifying glass: Organization, business model, challenges, and scientific context. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 18(16), 5775–5794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Foray, D., & Lundvall, B. (1998). The knowledge-based economy: From the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. The Economic Impact of Knowledge, 115–121.Google Scholar
  31. Freeman, C. (1987). Technical innovation, diffusion, and long cycles of economic development. In The long-wave debate (pp. 295–309). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gertler, M. S., & Wolfe, D. A. (2006). Spaces of knowledge flows: Clusters in a global context. Clusters and regional development: Critical reflections and explorations, 218–235.Google Scholar
  33. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Grindley, P., Mowery, D. C., & Silverman, B. (1994). SEMATECH and collaborative research: Lessons in the design of high-technology consortia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(4), 723–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.Google Scholar
  36. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1987). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hawkins, R. (1999). The rise of consortia in the information and communication technology industries: emerging implications for policy. Telecommunications Policy, 23, 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Honjo, Y., Nagaoka, S., Nakamura, K., & Shimizu, Y. (2010). Challenges in biotech firms’ growth—Survey mainly on funding, core technology, alliance and patent system. IIR Working Paper, WP#10-03, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, July 2010.Google Scholar
  40. Honjo, Y., Nagaoka, S., Nakamura, K., & Shimizu, Y. (2012). Challenges in biotech firms’ growth - Survey mainly on alliances and changes in company representatives. IIR Working Paper, WP#12-01, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, January 2012.Google Scholar
  41. Honjo, Y., Nagaoka, S., Nakamura, K., & Shimizu, Y. (2013). Challenges in biotech firms’ growth—Attention to scientific sources. IIR Working Paper, WP#13-03, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, January 2013.Google Scholar
  42. Ilic, D., & Stephenson, E. (2013). Promises and challenges of the first clinical-grade induced pluripotent stem cell bank. Regenerative Medicine, 8(2), 101–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Khanna, I. (2012). Drug discovery in pharmaceutical industry: Productivity challenges and trends. Drug Discovery Today, 17(19–20), 1088–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perception, opportunity, and profit. University.Google Scholar
  45. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.Google Scholar
  46. Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Knoepfler, P. S. (2013). Call for fellowship programs in stem cell-based regenerative and cellular medicine: New stem cell training is essential for physicians. Regenerative Medicine, 8(2), 223–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kobayashi, K. (2001). Journal of the Society of Project Management, 3(3), 21–26 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  49. Kodama, H., Watatani, K., & Sengoku, S. (2013). Competency-based assessment of academic interdisciplinary research and implication to university management. Research Evaluation, 22, 93–104.Google Scholar
  50. Koizumi, S. (2019). The light and shadow of the fourth industrial revolution. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 63–86). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (2010). Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies (Vol. 499). Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 461–477.Google Scholar
  53. Lauto, G., & Sengoku, S. (2015). Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a Japanese university research center. Futures, 65, 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. (1999). Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lechevalier, S., Ikeda, Y., & Nishimura, J. (2010). The effect of participation in government consortia on the R&D productivity of firms: a case study of robot technology in Japan. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(8), 669–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lundvall, B. Ä., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Malmberg, A., Sölvell, Ö., & Zander, I. (1996). Spatial clustering, local accumulation of knowledge and firm competitiveness. Geografiska Annaler. Series B. Human Geography, 85–97.Google Scholar
  58. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34(3), 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mason, C. (2008). Regenerative medicine 2.0. Regenerative Medicine, 2(1), 11–8.Google Scholar
  60. Miki, T. (2012). Japio Yearbook 2012 (pp. 58–63) (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  61. Mills, A. E., & Tereskerz, P. M. (2010). Empirical analysis of major stem cell patent cases: The role of universities. Nature Biotechnology, 28(4), 325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morgan, K. (2004). The exaggerated death of geography: Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Morioka, T. (2007). A study of local small business enterprises alliance from the network perspective. Proceedings of Research Institute for Industry and Economics, Chubu University, 17, 103–117.Google Scholar
  64. Motohashi, K. (2003). RIETI Discussion Paper Series 03-J-015 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  65. Motohashi, K. (2007). International comparison of biotech firms between Japan and the United States. Iryo To Shakai, 17, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Munisi, H. I., Le, T. K. Y., Jolivet, E., & Sengoku, S. (2013). Formation and management of biotech industrial clusters: Reviewing the Medicon Valley and Lyon in order to draw lessons for Kansai. The Kyoto Economic Review, 189(4), 1–18. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  67. Munisi, H. I., Xie, Z., & Sengoku, S. (2014). Exploring the innovation of stem cells and regenerative medicine in Japan: The power of consortium-based approach. Regenerative Medicine, 9(4), 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nakamura, H., & Asakawa, K. (2006). RIETI Discussion Paper Series 06-J-019 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  69. Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, 1, 3–21.Google Scholar
  70. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press.Google Scholar
  71. Okamoto, Y. (2011). Stem cells as a driver of the knowledge economy: Progress and challenges facing scotland (No. 189). SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  72. Okamuro, H. (2001). The normative evaluation and social choice of contemporary economic systems. COE/RES Discussion Paper Series, No. 66. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  73. Okamuro, H. (2003). Inter-firm co-operation of the Japanese SMEs in the manufacturing sector: An empirical analysis on the organizational and contractual structure of co-operation. Shoko Kinyu, 53(1), 21–31. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  74. Okamuro, H. (2006). Shoko Kinyu, 56(6), 35–51. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  75. Patzelt, H., Zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D., & Niko, P. (2008). Top Management teams, business models, and performance of biotechnology ventures: An upper echelon perspective. British Journal of Management, 19(3), 205–221.Google Scholar
  76. Paul, S. M., Mytelka, D. S., Dunwiddie, C. T., Persinger, C. C., Munos, B. H., Lindborg, S. R., et al. (2010). How to improve R&D productivity: The pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 9(3), 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Penrose, E. T. (2002). The growth of the firm: The legacy of Edith Penrose. Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  78. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. (2013). Biopharmaceutical research industry profile.Google Scholar
  80. Pisano, G. P. (2006). Science business: The promise, the reality, and the future of biotech. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  81. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.Google Scholar
  82. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic development quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rao, M. S., & Auerbach, J. M. (2006). Estimating human embryonic stem-cell numbers. Lancet, 367(9511), 650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rao, M. S. (2011). Funding translational work in cell-based therapy. Cell Stem Cell, 9(1), 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Reichert, J. M. (2003). A guide to drug discovery: Trends in development and approval times for new therapeutics in the United States. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2(9), 695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sakakibara, M. (1997). Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how? Research Policy, 26, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Scannell, J. W., Blanckley, A., Boldon, H., & Warrington, B. (2012). Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 11(3), 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sakurai, M., Munisi, H. I., Kakihara, H., & Sengoku, S. (2014, July). The current status and value creation of unlisted biotech drug discovery/development firms (biotech DDFs) in Japan: A holistic approach. In Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET), 2014 Portland International Conference on (pp. 3612–3620). IEEE.Google Scholar
  90. Samejima, M., & Shibuya, Y. (2010). The issues of the R&D consortium project funded by the government, and the need of “IP Producer”. Patent Studies, 49, 44–54. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  91. Sandner, P., & Ziegelbauer, K. (2008). Product-related research: how research can contribute to successful life-cycle management. Drug Discovery Today, 13(9–10), 457–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Schumpeter, J. (1927). The explanation of the business cycle. Economica, 21, 286–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sipp, D. (2012). Pay-to-participate funding schemes in human cell and tissue clinical studies. Regenerative Medicine, 7(6 Suppl), 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sengoku, S., Sumikura, K., Oki, T., & Nakatsuji, N. (2011). Redefining the concept of standardization for pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Review, 7(2), 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sengoku, S. (2013). A consortium-based approach for open innovation: Exploring a unique and optimal model for Japan and stem cell technology. Hitotsubashi Business Review, 61(3), 68–84. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  96. Stevenson, H. H., & Jarillo, J. C. (2007). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. In: Entrepreneurship (pp. 155–170). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Swann, G. M. P. (2000). The economics of standardization: Final report for standards and technical regulations directorate. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
  98. Taylor, C. J., Bolton, E. M., Pocock, S., Sharples, L. D., Pedersen, R. A., & Bradley, J. A. (2005). Banking on human embryonic stem cells: Estimating the number of donor cell lines needed for HLA matching. Lancet, 366(9502), 2019–2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Thomas, J. (2012). Collaborations in stem cell science. Regenerative Medicine, 7(6 Suppl), 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Timmons, J. A., Spinelli, S., & Tan, Y. (1994). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (Vol. 4). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  101. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.Google Scholar
  102. Valentin, F., Jensen, R. L., & Dahlgren, H. (2008). How venture capital shapes emerging bio-clusters—A cross-country comparison. European Planning Studies, 16(3), 441–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wakabayashi, N. (2009). The network organization: New insights of organization from social network theories. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  104. Watanabe, T. (2010). Interorganizational relation in research and development consortium as a strategic alliance. Journal of Intellectual Property Association of Japan, 7(2), 35–44. (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  105. Watatani, K., Xie, Z., Nakatsuji, N., & Sengoku, S. (2013). Global competencies from regional stem cell research: Bibliometrics for investigating and forecasting research trends. Regenerative Medicine, 8(5), 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Weiss, M., & Cargill, C. (1992). Consortia in the standards development process. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 43(8), 559–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Yamanaka, T., & Kano, S. (2016). Patent term extension systems differentiate Japanese and US drug lifecycle management. Drug Discovery Today, 21(1), 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations