Genzyme 's Focus On Orphan Drugs

Technology Strategies for New Product Development Rationalist approaches to technology strategy, such as that of Porter,1 view technological innovation as a relatively unproblematic aspect of corporate strategy. This article will attempt to show that the development of new products by a rm is a more complex, dynamic and uncertain activity than this, dependent for success on organizational as well as technological factors. It will be argued that strategies for technological innovation are, by implication, risk management systems. Here we are referring to the introduction of some means of control over the cost and direction of new technologies,

Spending $3 billion a year on research, Merck enjoyed a decade long span of unveiling new drugs on a regular basis (Lawrence & Weber, 2014). This was a major contributing factor to Merck’s ranking as the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world (Lawrence & Weber, 2014). In the 1980’s, 80% of the drug companies’ growth was attributed to drugs that addressed chronic, nonfatal conditions that affected a large population (Lawrence & Weber, 2014). These drugs, often referred to as blockbuster drugs, were usually taken by patients with health insurance which insured healthy sales and profits for the drug companies (Lawrence & Weber, 2014). Merck was in stiff competition with other drug manufacturers to create the next big blockbuster drug that would drive up profits. Coupled with that pressure was the amount of time involved in

This can be clearly illustrated by the situation Gillette faced during the leadership of the CEO Vincent Ziegler. He started to buy other companies and failed to generate more profit. At first his plan looked very promissory and generated revenue but at the end the company ended up losing money and time they could have invested in their own business.

Sánchez, A., Lago, A., Ferràs, X., & Ribera, J (2011) Innovation Management Practices, Strategic Adaptation, and Business Results: Evidence from the Electronics Industry. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation; 2011, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p14-39. Retrieved from Ebscohost

As Thompson (2015) has discussed, the world is changing fast and organizations must be flexible in handling changes to be able to thrive well or they may experience dilemmas. In 1997, Apple Company, which almost reached bankruptcy ousted its that time CEO, Gil Amelio, where Steve Jobs replaced him and declared himself interim CEO. Apple that time is experiencing a disruptive change, a change that is radical and immediately happening, in other words unexpected. However, they were able to response to it quickly and prevented the company to hit the very bottom by bringing back Steve Jobs. Jobs had so much idea with him, which the company needed most at that time (Time, 2016).

We also document the sources of financial commitment that enabled these strategic managers to sustain the uncertain innovation process until it could generate financial returns. In focusing on the roles of strategic control and financial commitment in sustaining the innovation process, this study suggests an alternative to conventional agency theory for explaining the relation between the governance of resource allocation and economic performance at Rolls-Royce. According to agency theory, the entrenchment of Rolls-Royce’s managers should have resulted in a squandering of the company’s resources, not superior economic performance. The fact that these managers exercised strategic control, and developed the RB211, under very different ownership structures also raises questions about the importance of ownership to corporate performance and the conditions under which a high-tech company that must make uncertain and expensive investments in technological development can be exposed to the demands of public shareholders. This study, therefore, sheds light on the role of not only career managers but also public shareholders in the innovation process. The next section describes how Rolls-Royce’s attempt to develop the three-shaft engine for Lockheed at the end of the 1960s resulted in bankruptcy. Then we detail how, as a nationalised company from February 1971 to May 1987, Rolls-Royce

Myriads of global scale organizations are successful due to the ability of leaders to make proper strategic decisions and also implement them. Therefore, the ability of executives to make relevant and strategic decisions not only places the company at a competitive

Jim Collins and his research team of 20 compared and contrasted how many companies made the leap to greatness and how other companies didn’t. Based on bundles of evidence and a large quantity of data, he and his team uncovered how

And of the time spent looking forward, no more than 20%is spent attempting to build a collective view of the future (the other 80% is spent looking at the future of the manager’s particular business). Thus, on average, senior management is devoting less than 3% (40% x 30% x 20% = 2.4%) of its energy to building a corporate perspective on the future. In some companies the figure is less than 1%. Questions go unanswered because to address them senior managers must first admit, to themselves and to their employees, that they are less than fully in control of their company’s future. So the urgent drives out the important, the future goes largely unexplored; and the capacity to act, rather than the capacity to think and imagine, becomes the sole measure of leadership.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries in the globe, often being perceived as more than the creator of medicines to help improve or save the lives of people. In this context, it is also necessary to assess the industry from a business standpoint, as an industry in which economic principles apply and play a crucial role. IN this line of thoughts, the Genzyme Corporation represents the focus of the present endeavor, with emphasis falling on their focus on orphan drugs.

Businesses that plan ahead are much more likely to become what they want to become than those who do not plan at all. A good manager ...plans and controls the plans, while a bad manager never plans and then tries to control people." 2

The case study Renovating Home Depot was the case of a leader who joined a successful business only to discover that the company was running out of growth opportunities and also did not have the basic systems needed for increased growth in place. Robert “Bob” Nardelli was chosen as the CEO of Home Depot based on his proven ability to reenergize slow-growth businesses. He was a leader that went all out to achieve his goals and was identified as someone who was “comfortable in his own suit”, and believes in being successful his own way. He made several innovations which were used in General Electric (GE) where he recorded past successes. We see the success demonstrated in the growth of revenue in Home Depot, as well as opening

Tidd and Bessant (2009) argued that “Unless an organization is able to move into further innovation, it risks being left behind as others take the lead in changing their offerings, their operational processes or the underlying models that drive their business”.

Fourth, is that the CEO is the champion of a capabilities-based strategy. I think that this puts the pressure on the CEO because he will be the one responsible for the direction of his company and the decisions he make can shape the future of the company. To be able to be a good CEO, one must outperform the completion in responding quickly to customer demands and to incorporate new ideas into products, produce a product that unfailingly satisfies customer’s expectations, see the competitive environment clearly, adapt simultaneously to many different business environments, and generate new ideas and to combine existing elements to create new sources of value. It is obvious that the CEO has a very big responsibility. In summary, the article speaks about the new logic of growth today, being a capabilities predator, a company focusing and investing more on its capabilities to satisfy the customer. But a question comes to mind after reading this article, what is the future of capabilities-based competition? If some time ago, the traditional companies were successful and were replaced by the growth of capabilities-based companies, what will happen if most of the companies will become more capabilities-based? Will the growth of these companies be consistent? Or will there be a new kind of competitor that dominates the market in the future? One thing is for

This is a critical to increase the organization`s awareness that it needs to make strategic adjustments in a continuous fashion and they should be aligned so as to utilize the bigger opportunity in front of them. This should start from the top management and they need to reinforce it across the organization so that every employee is working towards to incorporate that and move forward with that opportunity. Enough urgency towards a strategically, rationally and emotionally exciting opportunity is the foundation on which everything is built. A firm need to get rid of complacency and an ongoing urgency should emerge as strong competitive advantage. These actions helps managers to focus on opportunities and benefit the organization. Once top management takes decisions they need to convey this to whole organization and this will make the employees understand the needed urgency.