Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/77620
|
| Title: | 我國生技製藥廠商與國際生技製藥廠商研發合作關係之研究
R&D Collaboration of biopharmaceutical firms between taiwan and other countries |
| Authors: | 許芯沛 |
| Contributors: | 吳豐祥
許芯沛 |
| Keywords: | 跨國研發合作
研發合作動機
夥伴篩選
知識移轉
專案管理
Multinational R&D Collaboration
Motivation of R&D Collaboration
Partner Selection
Knowledge Transfer
Project Management |
| Date: | 2015 |
| Issue Date: | 2015-08-17 14:19:04 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 根據KPMG的研究顯示(2014)，生技製藥廠商間的合作是產業發展的趨勢，但合作的目的已經從原先的降低成本，發展到加速創新的產生。眾多國際製藥公司已經與外部夥伴進行合作，其中合作研發最能發揮合作夥伴間的效用，越緊密的合作越能使得合作網絡中多樣化的技術、能力結合，從而增強對於未被滿足醫療需求的理解。由此可見，跨國研發合作成為全球生技製藥廠商的企業策略。過去已有許多學者研究我國科技產業與國際廠商之研發合作，但甚少探究生技製藥廠商與國際生技製藥廠商間的研發合作。
本研究選定具有跨國研發合作豐富經驗的台灣生技製藥廠商為研究對象，探討其企業策略、核心能力及跨國研發動機如何影響跨國研發合作的管理。本研究從跨國研發合作影響因子以及跨國研發合作管理之內容兩個構面探討台灣生技製藥廠商與國際生技製藥廠商進行研發合作的互動關係。研究方法採取多重個案研究法，文獻探討部分包含生技製藥產業、企業策略與核心能力、國際研發合作、合作夥伴篩選因素、知識移轉與智財管理，研究者結合研究問題與文獻回顧導出觀念性研究架構，再依研究架構為主軸進行個案訪談與資料收集，實地深入訪談我國兩家生技製藥廠商，得出以下結論：
本研究發現，台灣生技製藥廠商與國際生技製藥廠商研進行發合作的動機一致，為降低及分散風險、分攤固定成本、技術與資源的互補與移轉、夥伴間營運策略的互補與相容性。篩選合作夥伴的主要考量也大致相同，包含資源及技術的互補、過往合作經驗、夥伴間營運策略的互補及相容性及財務能力。另外核心技術能力會影響台灣生技製藥廠商與合作夥伴合作起始的階段，研發合作起始階段的差異，更會影響知識移轉機制、以及合作方式的不同。另外，本研究也發現到，台灣生技製藥廠商在國際合作夥伴上的選擇會以不具直接競爭關係者為主，且與合作夥伴選擇以營業秘密的方式來保護技術知識。
According to the research of KPMG in 2014, R&D collaboration between biopharmaceutical firms is the trend of biopharmaceutical industry. Under the circumstance of globalization, product life-cycles are gradually shortening. The purpose of R&D collaboration change from cost reduction to speeding up innovation. Therefore, multinational R&D collaboration has become a global business strategy for biopharmaceutical firms. Most of the past studies of multinational R&D collaboration focus on ICT industry in Taiwan. Few specially investigate biopharmaceutical industry. Consequently, a research gap can be found as multinational R&D collaborating between biopharmaceutical firms of Taiwan and biopharmaceutical firms of other countries. This research focus on the biopharmaceutical firms of Taiwan, explore how multinational R&D collaboration influence factors (business strategy, core competencies and the motivation of multinational R&D collaboration) affect multinational R&D collaboration management of firms.
This research adopts two biopharmaceutical firms in Taiwan as case studies and conducts interviews with managers to understand multinational R&D collaboration influence factors and multinational R&D collaboration management. The conclusions of this research are as below:
This research finds out that the motivations of multinational R&D collaboration of Taiwan firms are coincident, including cost reduction, diversification of risk, resources and technologies complementarity. The evaluations of partner selecting are also coincident, including resources and technologies complementarity, collaboration experience, operating strategy complementarity and financial capability. In addition, core competencies may affect the initiation stage of R&D collaboration and the initiation stage of R&D collaboration may affect the mechanisms of knowledge transfer and the way of multinational collaboration. Moreover, this research also found out that the biopharmaceutical firms of Taiwan might primarily choose to collaborate with international partners who have indirect competitive relationship with them. Last, the biopharmaceutical firms of Taiwan and their partners protect their intellectual property in the way of trade secret. |
| Reference: | 一、英文文獻
• Adler, Lee. and Hlavacek, James D. (1976). Joint ventures for product innovation: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
• Andrews, Kenneth R. (1981). Corporate strategy as a vital function of the board. Harvard Business Review, 59(6), 174-184.
• Auster, Ellen R. (1987). International corperate linkage-dynamic forms in changing enviroments-introduction. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(2), 3-6.
• Badaracco, Joseph. (1991). The knowledge link: How firms compete through strategic alliances: Harvard Business Press.
• Bader, Martin A. (2006). Intellectual property management in R&D collaborations: the case of the service industry sector: Springer Science & Business Media.
• Baranson, J. (1990). Transnational strategic alliances: why, what, where and how. Multinational Business, 2(1), 54-61.
• Barnes, Tina Angela, Pashby, I. R., and Gibbons, A. M. (2006). Managing collaborative R&D projects development of a practical management tool. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 395-404.
• Barney, Jay. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Becker, Wolfgang, & Peters, Jurgen. (1998). R&D-competition between vertical corporate networks: Market structure and strategic R&D-spillovers. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 6(1), 51-72.
• Benbasat, Izak, Goldstein, David K., and Mead, Melissa. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 369-386.
• Brockhoff, Klaus. (1991). R&D cooperation between firms: a classification by structural variables. International Journal of Technology Management, 6(3), 361-373.
• Brouthers, Keith D., Brouthers, Lance Eliot, and Wilkinson, Timothy J. (1995). Strategic alliances: Choose your partners. Long Range Planning, 28(3), 2-25.
• Chandler Jnr, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Industrial Enterprise: MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
• Clark, Kim B., & Wheelwright, Steven C. (1992). Organizing and leading" heavyweight" development teams.
• Coase, Ronald H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
• Contractor, Farok J., and Lorange, Peter. (1988). Why should firms cooperate? The strategy and economics basis for cooperative ventures. Cooperative Strategies In International Business, 3-30.
• De Faria, Pedro, and Schmidt, Tobias. (2012). International cooperation on innovation: firm-level evidence from two European countries. Innovation, 14(3), 303-323.
• Devlin, Godfrey, and Bleackley, Mark. (1988). Strategic alliances—guidelines for success. Long Range Planning, 21(5), 18-23.
• DeWoot, Philippe. and Kommission Europäische, Gemeinschaften. (1990). High technology Europe: strategic issues for global competitiveness; a report from the FAST programme (forecasting and assessment in science and technology) of the Commission of the European Communities: Blackwell.
• Dodgson, Mark. (1993). Technological collaboration in industry: strategy, policy, and internationalization in innovation: Routledge.
• Eng, Teck-Yong, and Ozdemir, Sena. (2014). International R&D partnerships and intrafirm R&D–marketing–production integration of manufacturing firms in emerging economies. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 32-44.
• Gallon, Mark R., Stillman, Harold M., & Coates, David. (1995). Putting core competency thinking into practice. Research Technology Management, 38(3), 20-28.
• Geringer, J. Michael. (1991). Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in international joint ventures. Journal of international business studies, 41-62.
• Geringer, John Michael. (1988). Joint venture partner selection: Strategies for developed countries: Quorum Books.
• Grant, Robert M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. Knowledge And Strategy, 3-23.
• Hagedoorn, John. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371-385.
• Hamel, Gary, Doz, Yves L., and Prahalad, Coimbatore K. (1989). Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, 67(1), 133-139.
• Hamel, Gary. and Heene, Aime. (1994). Competence-based competition: Wiley.
• Harem, T. (1996). Knowledge-based Strategic Change in Georg von Krogh and Johan, Roos (ed.). Managing Knowledge-Perspectives on Cooperation and Competition: SAGE Publications.
• Harrigan, Kathryn Rudie. (1988). Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 9(2), 141-158.
• Howells, Jeremy R. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5-6), 871-884.
• Inkpen, Andrew C. (1996). Creating knowledge through collaboration. California Management Review, 39, 123-140.
• James, Barrie G. (1985). Alliance: The new strategic focus. Long Range Planning, 18(3), 76-81.
• Kogut, Bruce. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319-332.
• KPMG INTERNATIONAL. (2014). Growing the pipeline, growing the bottom line: Shifts in pharmaceutical R&D innovation
• Leonard, Dorothy. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic management journal, 13(2), 111-125.
• Lewis. (1991). partnership for profit: New York Free Press.
• Li, Dan, Eden, Lorraine, Hitt, Michael A., & Ireland, R. Duane. (2008). Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 315-334.
• Lin, Yichen, Wu, ChienHsing, Wang, William Y. C., and Lam, Le Xuan. (2011). Intellectual property in inter-firm R&D collaboration, an examination on the role of IP management core components. Paper presented at the Service Sciences (IJCSS), 2011 International Joint Conference On.
• Long, Carl, and Vickers-Koch, Mary. (1995). Using core capabilities to create competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 24(1), 7-22.
• Luecke, Richard. (2004). Managing projects large and small: the fundamental skills for delivering on budget and on time: Harvard Business Press.
• Lynch, Robert Porter. (1989). The practical guide to joint ventures and corporate alliances: Wiley New York.
• Machlup, Fritz. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States (Vol. 278): Princeton University Press.
• Mathews, John. (1996). Organisational foundations of the knowledge-based economy. Employment and growth in the knowledge-based economy. OECD. Paris, 157-180.
• Michael, Song X., Jeffrey, Thieme R., and Jinhong, Xie. (1998). The impact of cross‐functional joint involvement across product development stages: an exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 289-303.
• Narula, Rajneesh, and Hagedoorn, John. (1999). Innovating through strategic alliances: moving towards international partnerships and contractual agreements. Technovation, 19(5), 283-294.
• Optimization, Design Chain. (2003). Competing in the disaggregated electronics industry. Cadence Design Systems, White Paper.
• Penrose, Edith T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of theFirm. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell and Mott Ltd.
• Pfeffer, Jeffrey, & Nowak, Phillip. (1976). Joint ventures and interorganizational interdependence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 398-418.
• Polanyi, Michael. (1967). The tacit dimension.
• Porter, Michael E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competition. New York, 300.
• Provan, Keith G. (1984). Interorganizational cooperation and decision making autonomy in a consortium multihospital system. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 494-504.
• Quinn, James Brian. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism: Irwin Professional Publishing.
• Sakakibara, Mariko. (1997). Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how? Research Policy, 26(4), 447-473.
• Takac, Paul F., & Singh, C. P. (1992). Strategic alliances in banking. Management Decision, 30(1).
• Teece, David J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 39-63.
• Van Dierdonck, Roland, & Miller, Jeffrey G. (1980). Designing production planning and control systems. Journal of Operations Management, 1(1), 37-46.
• Vonortas, Nicholas S., & Safioleas, Stratos P. (1997). Strategic alliances in information technology and developing country firms: recent evidence. World Development, 25(5), 657-680.
• Wernerfelt, Birger. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180.
• Williams, R. G., and Lilley, M. M. (1993). Partner selection for joint-venture agreements. International Journal of Project Management, 11(4), 233-237.
• Williamson, Oliver E. (1988). Technology and transaction cost economics: A reply. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 10(3), 355-363.
• Yin, Robert. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods . Beverly Hills: CA: Sage Publishing.
• Zack, Michael H. (2002). Developing a knowledge strategy. The Strategic Management Of Intellectual Capital And Organizational Knowledge, 255-276.
• Zahra, Shaker A., and Covin, Jeffrey G. (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 451-478.
• Zuckerman, Howard S., & Daunno, Thomas A. (1990). Hospital alliances: cooperative strategy in a competitive environment. Health Care Management Review, 15(2), 21-30.
二、中文文獻
• 尤克熙 (1995)，國際策略盟實行條件相關因素之實證與探討:以高科技產業為例，國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
• 余萬能 (2007)，藥品與食品同一來源之管理法制--論藥事法第六條藥品之範圍。
• 吳克 (2001)，策略聯盟的行程與夥伴選擇:金屬工業。
• 吳青松 (1992)，國際產業策略聯盟之型態與發展趨勢。
• 吳青松 (1996)，策略聯盟之國際發展趨勢，取自 http://www. moea. gov. tw/~ ecobook/season/sa612. htm。
• 呂鴻德 (1996)，企業策略聯盟-提昇競爭力的經營利器，台北:商周文化。
• 李振南 (2013)，CRO加速台灣新藥上市三大題材2014年即將攤牌，金融家月刊。
• 宗守用 (1999)，台商以策略聯盟赴大陸投資之研究，國立中山大學。
• 林玲君 (1991)，策略聯盟形成因素與績效之硏究:資訊電子業之實證， National Taiwan University Graduate Institute of Business Administration。
• 張美鈴 (2001)，大陸台商策略聯盟之模式研究-以中達斯米克為例(未出版)， 國立中山大學。
• 陳振興 (2002)，共同研發、外溢與專利授權，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
• 經濟部生技醫藥產業發展推動小組 (2014)，中華民國2015生物技術與醫藥產業簡介，經濟部工業局。
• 劉孝從 (2008)，台灣生技製藥業之新藥開發流程-開放式創新管理觀點，國立政治大學。
• 劉宜萍(1995) 形成策略聯盟之目標、選擇盟友準則與型態間相關性之研究-以台灣積體電路產業為例。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
102364110 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102364110 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 411001.pdf | 4571Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 147 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
