Branża biotechnologii - globalne tendencje i perspektywy strategiczne dla polskich firm

• Authors: Krzysztof Klincewicz

Title variants

EN

The Biotechnological Industry - Global Tendencies and Strategic Perspectives for Polish Enterprises

Abstracts

EN

The article describes global tendencies and strategic perspectives for Polish enterprises in the biotechnological industry. It describes biotechnologies and the role of the academia, pharmaceuticals, companies specializing in biotechnology, and governments in the development of the sector. Based on the studies of theme-specific publications, the author analyzed the strategies adopted by industry players, proposing a typology of possible business models for new ventures. The article recommends strategic options to the Polish market participants: activities in the domains of biosimilars, technology platforms and specialist knowledge-based services.

PL

Autor artykułu omawia globalne tendencje i perspektywy strategiczne dla polskich przedsiębiorstw branży biotechnologicznej, prezentując charakterystykę biotechnologii oraz role uczelni, publicznych instytutów badawczych, koncernów farmaceutycznych, specjalistycznych firm biotechnologicznych i rządu w rozwoju sektora. W oparciu o badania literaturowe autor przeprowadził analizę przyjmowanych przez firmy w tej branży strategii, proponując typologię możliwych modeli biznesowych dla nowopowstających spółek. Artykuł zawiera rekomendacje opcji strategicznych wydających się najlepiej wspierać rozwój polskich uczestników rynku: działalności w obszarach bioodpowiedników, platform technologicznych oraz specjalistycznych, opartych na wiedzy usług.

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Problemy Zarządzania
• Year: 2006
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 2(12)
• Pages: 106-127

Dates

published

2006

Contributors

author

Krzysztof Klincewicz

• Wydział Zarządzania, Uniwersytet Warszawski

References

• Arora, A. i A. Gambardella. 1990. Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology. The Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 38, nr 4, s. 361-379.
• Audretsch, D.B. i P.E. Stephan. 1999. Knowledge Spillovers in Biotechnology: Sources and Incentives. Evolutionary Economics, nr 9, s. 97-107.
• Bergeron, B. i P. Chan. 2004. Biotech Industry. A Global, Economic, and Financing Overview. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
• Beuzekomvan van, B. 2004. Biotechnology Statistics in OECD Member Countries: An Inventory. Paryż: OECD STI Working Paper 2004/8, DSTI/DOC(2004)8.
• BRE Bank. 2005. Bioton. Ile Warta jest Opcja Wzrostu? Dom Inwestycyjny BRE Bank S.A., 15 lipca 2005, http://i.wp.pl/a/f/pdf/8600/komentarz_bioton.pdf.
• Brown, K. 2003. Working Weeds. Scientific American, vol. 288, nr 4, s. 34-36.
• Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmen, M. i A. Rickne. 2002. Innovation Systems: Analytical and Methodological Issues. Research Policy, nr 31, s. 233-245.
• Casper, S. i R. Whitley. 2002. Managing Competences in Entrepreneurial Technology Firms: a Comparative Institutional Analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK. ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge Working Paper Nr 230.
• Chiaroni, D. i V. Chiesa. 2006. Forms of Creation of Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology. Technovation, w przygotowaniu do druku.
• Cole, L.A. 1996. The Specter of Biological Weapons. Scientific American, nr 275, s. 30-35.
• Dalpe, R. 2002. Bibliometric Analysis of Biotechnology. Scientometrics, vol. 55, nr 2, s. 189-213.
• Datamonitor. 2003a. Global Biotechnology. Industry Profile. Raport 0199-0695.
• Datamonitor. 2003b. Biotechnology in Europe. Industry Profile. Raport 0201-0695.
• Economic Times. 2005. Docs Hop on the KPO Bandwagon. Economic Times, 1 maja 2005, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1094221.cms.
• Economist. 2005a. Testing Times. Getting More out of Pharmaceutical R&D. The Economist, 18 czerwca 2005.
• Economist. 2005b. The Next Big Thing. India and China Hold Great Pharmaceutical Promise. The Economist, 18 czerwca 2005.
• Egeln, J., Gottschalk, S., Rammer, Ch. i A. Spielkamp. 2002. Public Research Spin-offs in Germany. Summary Report. Mannheim: Zentrum fur Europaische Wirtschaftsforschung.
• Einhorn, B. i J. Carey. 2005. A New Lab Partner for the U.S.? Business Week, 22-29 sierpnia 2005, s. 116-117.
• Ernst & Young. 2003. The European Biotechnology Report. 10th Anniversary Edition. Key facts and figures. http://www.ey.com/global/download.nsf/UK/Endurance_ -_Tables_and_figures/$file/EV _Biotech_Report_2003.pdf.
• Evenson, R.E. 2002. Agricultural Biotechnology. w: Steil B., Victor D.G. i R.R. Nelson (red.) Technological Innovation & Economic Performance, s. 367-384. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Exxell, C. 2003. Fixing Food. Scientific American, vol. 288, nr 1, s. 24-25.
• Gans, J.S. i S. Stern. 2003. The Product Market and the Market for "Ideas": Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs. Research Policy, nr 32, s. 333-350.
• Goodsell, D.S. 2004. Bionanotechnology. Lessons from Nature, New Jersey: Wiley-Liss.
• Gulati, R. i M. Gargiulo. 1999. Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From? American Journal of Sociology, vol. 104, nr 5, s. 1439-1493.
• Hagedoorn, J. 2002. Inter-firm R&D Partnerships: An Overview of Major Trends and Patterns since 1960. Research Policy, nr 31, s. 477-492.
• Harding, R. 2002. Competition and Collaboration in German Technology Transfer. European Management Journal, vol. 20, nr 5, s. 470-485.
• Heller, M.A. i R.S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, nr 280, s. 698-701.
• Hope, J.E. 2004. Open Source Biotechnology. Rozprawa Doktorska. Canberra: Australian National University, http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/hope.pdf.
• Klefenz, H. 2002. Industrial Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
• Kotler, Ph., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. i V. Wong. 1999. Principles of Marketing. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
• Labrador, D. 2003. Refining Green Gold. Scientific American, vol. 288, nr 12, s. 38-39.
• Lehrer, M. i K. Asakawa. 2004. Pushing Scientists into the Marketplace: Promoting Science Entrepreneurship. California Management Review, vol. 46, nr 3, s. 55-76.
• Liebeskind, J.P., Oliver, A.L., Zucker, L. i M. Brewer. 1999. Social Networks, Learning, and Flexibility: Sourcing Scientific Knowledge in New Biotechnology Firms. Organization Science, vol. 7, nr 4, s. 428-443.
• Lim, K. 2004. The Relationship between Research and Innovation in the Semiconductor and Pharmaceutical Industries (1981-1997). Research Policy, nr 33, s. 287-321.
• Lim, L.P.L. i M.J. Gregory. 2004. Singapore's Biomedical Science Sector Development Strategy: Is it Sustainable? Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 1O, nr 4, s. 352-362.
• Maeder, Th. 2003. The Orphan Drug Backlash. Scientific American, vol. 288, nr 5, s. 81-87.
• Malerba, F. 2002. Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production. Research Policy, nr 31, s. 247-264.
• Mangematin, V., Lemarie, S., Boissin, J.P., Catherine, D., Corolleur, F., Coronini, R. i M. Trommetter. 2003. Development of SMEs and Heterogeneity of Trajectories: The Case of Biotechnology in France. Research Policy, nr 32, s. 621-638.
• McMillan, G.S. Narin, F. i D.L. Deeds. 2000. An Analysis of the Critical Role of Public Science in Innovation: the Case of Biotechnology. Research Policy, nr 29, s. 1-8.
• MNiI [Ministerstwo Nauki i Informatyzacji]. 2003. Streszczenie Raportu Diagnostycznego Biotechnologii w Polsce. http://www.mnii.gov.pl/mnii/print.jsp?place=Text01&news_cat_ id=80&news_id= 1261.
• Pisano, G.P. 1990. The R&D Boundaries of the Finn: An Empirical Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, nr 35, s. 153-176.
• Pisano, G.P. 2002. Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. w: Steil 8., Victor D.G. i R.R. Nelson (red.) Technological Innovation & Economic Performance, s. 347-366. Princeton - Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Basingstoke - London: Macmillan.
• Porter, A.L., Rossner, J.D., Jin, X.Y. i N.C. Newman. 2002. Measuring National 'Emerging Technology' Capabilities. Science and Public Policy, vol. 29, nr 3, s. 1-12.
• Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. i L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, nr 41, s. 116-145.
• Red Herring. 2005. Stat Attact. Red Herring, 2, 26 (18 lipca 2005), s. 7.
• Rothaermel, F.T. 2001. Complementary Assets, Strategic Alliances and the Incumbent's Advantage: an Empirical Study of Industry and Firm Effects in the Biopharmaceutical Industry. Research Policy, nr 30, s. 1235-1251.
• Rynek Chemiczny. 2003. Sektor Biotechnologiczny w Polsce. Rynek Chemiczny, nr 4.
• Senker, J. i M. Sharp. 1997. Organizational Learning in Cooperative Alliances: Some Case Studies in Biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 9, nr 1, s. 35-51.
• Shapiro, C. i H.R. Varian. 1999. lnformation Rules. A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
• Singh, H. 2005. Want a 500% Salary Hike? Join a KPO. Economic Times, 10 maja 2005, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1104066,curpg-1.cms.
• US Congress. 1993. Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks and Rewards. Raport OTA-H-522. Washington: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment.
• Viardot, E. 2004. Successful Marketing Strategy for High-Tech Firms. Boston - London: Artech House.
• Zorpette, G. 2000. The Chemical Games. Scientific American, vol. 11, nr 3, s. 16-23.

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki

33352296