快速屏幕在行动:项目、产品或平台案例示例

J. M. York, Dennis Abremski, Emily Aboujaoude, Arun Muthirulan, Elke Lipka, Krishna Patel, Natali Jouzi, Yongchan Lee, Vineet Pradhan, Polly Luo, Alexis Mingey, Lexa Molinari, Michael Toscani
{"title":"快速屏幕在行动:项目、产品或平台案例示例","authors":"J. M. York, Dennis Abremski, Emily Aboujaoude, Arun Muthirulan, Elke Lipka, Krishna Patel, Natali Jouzi, Yongchan Lee, Vineet Pradhan, Polly Luo, Alexis Mingey, Lexa Molinari, Michael Toscani","doi":"10.5912/jcb1280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessing innovative technologies and venture opportunities in the biopharma-life science space involves a complicated effort. However, should it be? This question is especially relevant when screening new opportunities. This paper addresses how established firms can quickly and efficiently assess new biomedical-life science ventures of different maturity (development and commercial) levels. Boni’s (2012, 2019) “quick screen” and metaphorical “3 Ps” (project, product, platform) provide a practical framework to examine new biopharma-life science ventures (assets). Boni’s works (2012, 2019) frame these elements. They intend to provide a framework to complement case studies for use separately in a workshop or “boot camp” format. Our present effort includes multiple case studies to provide practical guidance for the framework’s use. Accordingly, this paper extends Boni’s work by examining eight practical cases gathered via a purposeful sample to illustrate the use of the “quick screen” relative to each metaphorical category: project (4), product (2), and platform (2). Data sources included company and market information from company documents, firm websites, peer-review sources, market reports, and business portals. Data were mapped against “quick screen” criteria and categorized as positives, negatives, or uncertainties. Evaluation of the mapped data led to low to medium to high ratings relative to opportunity, monetary, and competitive advantage criteria. Descriptions provide qualitative insights to situate each case example relative to its specific “3 P” category, with six cases subclassified (e.g., moderate-low, low-moderate, high-moderate) when graded. This paper provides four practical contributions: 1) multiple “real world” cases to illustrate the framework, 2) a risk-opportunity-maturity relationship model, 3) scenarios of when or when not to use the “quick screen”, and 4) engagement strategies based on “P” classification as practice contributions. It concludes that Boni’s (2012, 2019) construct provides a useful and efficient tool for examining new biopharma- life science ventures (assets) at differing maturities. Future work should build on these case examples, findings, and contributions while embracing a more-structured case study evaluation methodology to further practice and theory contributions.","PeriodicalId":88541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of commercial biotechnology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The QUICK SCREEN in Action: Project, Product, or Platform Case Examples\",\"authors\":\"J. M. York, Dennis Abremski, Emily Aboujaoude, Arun Muthirulan, Elke Lipka, Krishna Patel, Natali Jouzi, Yongchan Lee, Vineet Pradhan, Polly Luo, Alexis Mingey, Lexa Molinari, Michael Toscani\",\"doi\":\"10.5912/jcb1280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Assessing innovative technologies and venture opportunities in the biopharma-life science space involves a complicated effort. However, should it be? This question is especially relevant when screening new opportunities. This paper addresses how established firms can quickly and efficiently assess new biomedical-life science ventures of different maturity (development and commercial) levels. Boni’s (2012, 2019) “quick screen” and metaphorical “3 Ps” (project, product, platform) provide a practical framework to examine new biopharma-life science ventures (assets). Boni’s works (2012, 2019) frame these elements. They intend to provide a framework to complement case studies for use separately in a workshop or “boot camp” format. Our present effort includes multiple case studies to provide practical guidance for the framework’s use. Accordingly, this paper extends Boni’s work by examining eight practical cases gathered via a purposeful sample to illustrate the use of the “quick screen” relative to each metaphorical category: project (4), product (2), and platform (2). Data sources included company and market information from company documents, firm websites, peer-review sources, market reports, and business portals. Data were mapped against “quick screen” criteria and categorized as positives, negatives, or uncertainties. Evaluation of the mapped data led to low to medium to high ratings relative to opportunity, monetary, and competitive advantage criteria. Descriptions provide qualitative insights to situate each case example relative to its specific “3 P” category, with six cases subclassified (e.g., moderate-low, low-moderate, high-moderate) when graded. This paper provides four practical contributions: 1) multiple “real world” cases to illustrate the framework, 2) a risk-opportunity-maturity relationship model, 3) scenarios of when or when not to use the “quick screen”, and 4) engagement strategies based on “P” classification as practice contributions. It concludes that Boni’s (2012, 2019) construct provides a useful and efficient tool for examining new biopharma- life science ventures (assets) at differing maturities. Future work should build on these case examples, findings, and contributions while embracing a more-structured case study evaluation methodology to further practice and theory contributions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of commercial biotechnology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of commercial biotechnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb1280\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of commercial biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb1280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评估生物制药-生命科学领域的创新技术和风险投资机会涉及一项复杂的工作。然而,应该是这样吗?在筛选新机会时,这个问题尤为重要。本文讨论了已建立的公司如何能够快速有效地评估不同成熟度(开发和商业)水平的新的生物-生命科学企业。博尼(2012年、2019年)的“快速筛选”和隐喻性的“3p”(项目、产品、平台)为检查新的生物制药-生命科学企业(资产)提供了一个实用的框架。Boni的作品(2012年,2019年)构建了这些元素。他们打算提供一个框架来补充案例研究,以便在讲习班或“新兵训练营”形式中单独使用。我们目前的工作包括多个案例研究,为框架的使用提供实际指导。因此,本文扩展了Boni的工作,通过有目的的样本收集了八个实际案例,以说明“快速屏幕”相对于每个隐喻类别的使用:项目(4),产品(2)和平台(2)。数据源包括来自公司文件,公司网站,同行评审来源,市场报告和商业门户网站的公司和市场信息。根据“快速筛选”标准绘制数据,并将其分类为阳性、阴性或不确定。对映射数据的评估导致了相对于机会、货币和竞争优势标准的从低到中到高的评级。描述提供了定性的见解,以定位每个案例示例相对于其特定的“3p”类别,在分级时有六个案例细分(例如,中-低,低-中,高-中)。本文提供了四个实践贡献:1)多个“现实世界”案例来说明框架,2)风险-机会-成熟度关系模型,3)何时或何时不使用“快速屏幕”的场景,以及4)基于“P”分类的参与策略作为实践贡献。它的结论是,Boni(2012, 2019)的结构为检查不同期限的新生物制药-生命科学企业(资产)提供了有用和有效的工具。未来的工作应该建立在这些案例、发现和贡献的基础上,同时采用更结构化的案例研究评估方法来进一步的实践和理论贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The QUICK SCREEN in Action: Project, Product, or Platform Case Examples
Assessing innovative technologies and venture opportunities in the biopharma-life science space involves a complicated effort. However, should it be? This question is especially relevant when screening new opportunities. This paper addresses how established firms can quickly and efficiently assess new biomedical-life science ventures of different maturity (development and commercial) levels. Boni’s (2012, 2019) “quick screen” and metaphorical “3 Ps” (project, product, platform) provide a practical framework to examine new biopharma-life science ventures (assets). Boni’s works (2012, 2019) frame these elements. They intend to provide a framework to complement case studies for use separately in a workshop or “boot camp” format. Our present effort includes multiple case studies to provide practical guidance for the framework’s use. Accordingly, this paper extends Boni’s work by examining eight practical cases gathered via a purposeful sample to illustrate the use of the “quick screen” relative to each metaphorical category: project (4), product (2), and platform (2). Data sources included company and market information from company documents, firm websites, peer-review sources, market reports, and business portals. Data were mapped against “quick screen” criteria and categorized as positives, negatives, or uncertainties. Evaluation of the mapped data led to low to medium to high ratings relative to opportunity, monetary, and competitive advantage criteria. Descriptions provide qualitative insights to situate each case example relative to its specific “3 P” category, with six cases subclassified (e.g., moderate-low, low-moderate, high-moderate) when graded. This paper provides four practical contributions: 1) multiple “real world” cases to illustrate the framework, 2) a risk-opportunity-maturity relationship model, 3) scenarios of when or when not to use the “quick screen”, and 4) engagement strategies based on “P” classification as practice contributions. It concludes that Boni’s (2012, 2019) construct provides a useful and efficient tool for examining new biopharma- life science ventures (assets) at differing maturities. Future work should build on these case examples, findings, and contributions while embracing a more-structured case study evaluation methodology to further practice and theory contributions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信