Review
Post ScreenThe role of users in innovation in the pharmaceutical industry
Post Screen
Introduction
Traditionally, innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is very much organised from the perspective of the linear model, that is, basic science findings are translated into clinical compounds that are subsequently marketed as drugs. The ‘drug research and development pipeline’ model of pharmaceutical companies is a clear demonstration of this. For many years, this model have been useful to manage R&D-driven pharmaceutical innovation processes. Firms, universities and specialised suppliers were the most important actors and they fitted rather well in this linear model. Over the past two decades, the linear model concept increasingly lost its meaning. Rising costs, increased competition, new scientific and technological developments, and better-informed, more demanding users who pressurize for higher added-value products, and more niche market products changed the context in which pharmaceutical innovations take place. The linear model is not well suited to involve these new actors in innovation processes. Dependence on this model might result in risks of provoking resistance and making insufficient use of the creative potential of these actors. This trend is not exclusive for the pharmaceutical sector. Many other sectors witness the same development and some of them – for example, in ICT, consumer electronics, food – already anticipated on it.
This paper focuses on the involvement of important, but often-overlooked actors in pharmaceutical innovation processes: users, such as patient advocacy groups, medical professional organisations and insurance companies. Major questions we will address are:
Why is it important to involve these actors and how can this be done in an effective and efficient way?
The outline of this paper is as follows. First, we will explain how we perceive innovation and why a more systemic, open model is better able to cope with problems in pharmaceutical innovation processes. In this context the implications for the R&D pipeline model, which neglects the systemic character of innovation processes, and is used by the majority of pharmaceutical firms, will be discussed. Hereafter we focus on one particular type of actors, the users. We will discuss the reasons why they should be involved and illustrate the diversity of user–producer interactions (UPIs). Using three cases we will demonstrate this variety, at the same time show that carefully designed UPIs are possible and how firms and other actors involved may benefit from them. In the last section, we will draw conclusions regarding the implications of a more systemic approach for policymakers, researchers and firms.
Section snippets
A different view on innovation processes: from linear to systemic
Innovation is a complex process. Despite this, for many years a rather simplistic model of innovation processes dominated the scene. This model became known as the linear model of innovation and was well characterised by the slogan of the 1934 World Expo in Chicago: ‘Science finds, Industry applies, Man conforms’. Failures on the market and new insights from innovation theory deepened insights into innovation processes. Scholars such as Nelson and Winter [1], Rip [2], Bijker et al. [3],
Innovation in pharmaceutical industries: the linear model under pressure
During the 1980s and 1990s, many authors [20] began to claim that the linear layout of the drug research and development pipeline could be enhanced by feedback and feedforward steps, and even cyclic interactions within the companies and with basic and clinical research partners. In some stages of the model information is produced, or more passively, has come to light, that has a bearing on research and development of new medicines in other stages. These interactions occur between different
Five reasons to involve users
In recent years scholars from many disciplines have emphasised the role of users in innovation processes. At the same time, these scholars ascribe different – however not mutually exclusive – roles to users in technological change and/or innovation processes.
Users can play a role as more or less active consumers, as modifiers, domesticators, designers and, in fact, also as opponents of technological innovation. Von Hippel [28] showed that in many sectors, such as the medical equipment industry,
Policy measures and business strategies to involve users
UPI is a heterogeneous concept serving many different goals. Variety is caused by different goals (e.g. collecting new ideas, developing a shared vision, improving the introduction onto the market), differences in innovation trajectories (e.g. related to the phase of development) and differences regarding the demand side (e.g. niche or mass market). These differences ask for a careful, tailor-made design of UPIs in which each actor has its own role to play. This heterogeneity makes it difficult
Conclusion
Changes in science and technology as well as in the context in which pharmaceutical firms have to manage their innovation processes will lead pharmaceutical companies to replace their linear perspective by a systemic, multi-actor perspective. Involving users in innovation processes is an important consequence hereof. The creative potential of users will add to the (societal and economic) quality of innovation processes and increase acceptance of innovations. Insights from innovation studies
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Huub Schellekens and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments. We would also like to thank the ‘Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)’ for financial support.
References (64)
- et al.
In search of a useful theory of innovation
Res. Policy
(1977) - et al.
The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “mode 2” to Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations
Res. Policy
(2000) - et al.
Is pharmaceutical R&D just a game of chance or can strategy make a difference?
Drug Discov. Today
(2004) Discussions in Geneva, demonstrations in Delhi: why incentives for drug innovation need reviewing
Drug Discov. Today
(2007)The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2005)The struggle against neuromuscular diseases in France and the emergence of the “partnership model” of patient organisation
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2003)- et al.
Real-time technology assessment
Technol. Soc.
(2002) - et al.
Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: trends, patterns, and networks
Res. Policy
(2006) Wetenschap als Mensenwerk. Over de Rol van Natuurwetenschappen in de Samenleving
(1978)The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology
(1987)