Review
Post Screen
The role of users in innovation in the pharmaceutical industry

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2007.12.006Get rights and content

Traditionally, innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is organised according to the linear model. Over the past two decades this model lost its meaning as a result of rising costs, increased competition, new scientific developments and better-informed, more demanding users. The linear model is not well equipped to involve these new actors and to include their feedback. Starting from a systemic approach, the involvement of actors in pharmaceutical innovation processes, more in particular users, is put central. It is discussed and illustrated with three cases why a systemic model may be more effective to cope with present developments and why users should be involved. To wind up, conclusions are drawn regarding the implications of a systemic approach for policymakers, researchers and firms.

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)

  • J. Ziman

    Real Science: What it is, and What it Means

    (2001)
  • M. Gibbons

    The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies

    (1994)
  • OECD

    Technology and the Economy. The Key Relationships

    (1992)
  • A. Rip et al.

    Technological change

  • G. Dosi

    Technical Change and Economic Theory

    (1988)
  • R. Smits et al.

    The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy

    Int. J. Foresight Innovation Policy

    (2004)
  • C. Freeman et al.

    Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution

    (1988)
  • B.A. Lundvall

    National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning

    (1992)
  • R. Nelson

    National Innovation Systems

    (1993)
  • C. Freeman

    The diversity of national research systems

  • R. Smits

    The new role of strategic intelligence

  • S. Kuhlmann

    Improving Distributed Intelligence in Complex Innovation Systems

    (1999)
  • H.W. Chesbrough

    Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology

    (2003)
  • B. Munos

    Can open-source R&D revigorate drug research?

    Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.

    (2006)
  • J. Radisch

    More medicines for neglected and emerging infectious diseases

    Bull. WHO

    (2007)
  • R.A. Maxwell

    The state of the art of the science of drug discovery – an opinion

    Drug Dev. Res.

    (1984)
  • B. Vastag

    New clinical trials policy at FDA

    Nat. Biotechnol.

    (2006)
  • H.A. Ghofrani

    Sildenafil: from angina to erectile dysfunction to pulmonary hypertension and beyond

    Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.

    (2006)
  • S. Arlington

    What will pharma look like in 2020?

    Drug Discov. World

    (2007)
  • T.T. Ashburn et al.

    Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs

    Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.

    (2004)
  • T. Hara

    Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry

    (2003)
  • E. Von Hippel

    Democratizing Innovation

    (2005)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text