User talk:AAdekanye

From Information Systems at Pitt Business

Executive Summary:

Open Innovation is a strategy by which companies allow a flow of knowledge across their boundaries as they look for ways to enhance their innovation capability. Company boundaries become permeable, enabling the matching and integration of resources between the company and external collaborators. In a closed approach to innovation, a company relies on external resources only. This white paper is not intended to present open innovation as a new alternative to closed innovation even though the motivation behind it is exactly that, the paper seeks to present issues and problems that could arise when companies in the ever changing, innovative bio-pharma industry adopt the Open Innovation model. The bio-pharma industry clearly presents the complexities with Open Innovation, a phenomenon which can no longer be ignored because the world is becoming too fast and too networked for a single firm to develop all the technology it needs internally in an industry where intellectual property is the major source of competitive advantage. Even though Open Innovation seems to be one of the solutions in an era where R&D budgets are being slashed while management still requires the same or even higher innovative standards, its impact on an organization that has been successful using the closed approach should not be seen as a win-win outcome. Research shows the four main issues with Open Innovation that companies in the Bio-pharma industry have to tackle would be CULTURE, PROCEDURES, MOTIVATION and skills but I’ll focus on the first three as organizations seem to have different approaches to solving these three. These are all internally but it should be remembered that there are other issues, external to the company and industry in general that need to be considered, including partnership management, Intellectual Property management, growth, acquisition strategy etc.

Introduction: The concept of Open Innovation has been around for a while now Many companies in the bio-pharma industry have jumped up and down and declared themselves to be ‘open’ for business, but we need to know how does this actually work? How are they implementing OI in practice? What issues have they faced? And how can they overcome these issues given there are yet no best practices model or benchmarking for such practices as yet. Before we discuss these core issues I’ll like to point out the different of levels of open innovation (Robert Shelton) and which particular level this paper would be focused on, and it’s important to outline this differences because a company can say it’s open for business but only outsource the very little part of its business or technology it doesn’t care much about so as to reap profits in areas where it naturally would not reap profits. Below is a brief outline of the three levels identified. Level 1: Level 1 companies recognize that external ideas and capabilities are valuable in the innovation process. They partner with suppliers and customers throughout the innovation process—from ideation to commercialization. However, partnerships are mostly opportunistic at this stage Level 2: Companies at the second level of maturity make partnerships an integral part of their innovation strategy. These companies build a culture of collaboration and also establish a defined Open Innovation model. Level 3: A Level 3 Company is the most mature, able to orchestrate the ecosystem of companies and talent in its domain. At this stage companies no longer only maintain single partnerships with sole firms. They employ an echo system of companies focused on the same goal. For example Eli Lilly transitioned to Level 3 in 2006 when it shifted its Open Innovation model to a Fully Integrated Pharmaceutical Network. Eli Lilly built a network of hundreds of companies—a collaborative ecosystem—that delivers higher levels of value for Lilly and the entire ecosystem. These ecosystem partners are encouraged to share technologies and collaborate not only with Lilly itself but with each other, creating a strong, dynamic system of collaboration. This report would be focused on Level 3 companies or companies at least willing to achieve Level 3 status as they present the most compelling evidence on the difficulty of managing open innovation.

Issue: The issues surrounding Open innovation in the bio-pharma industry is unprecedented ranging from Ownership of Intellectual property rights to even basic hardware components. This paper focuses on difficulties arising when implementing an Open Innovation model in a historically closed corporate culture as it is the case in most firms in the pharmaceutical industry until now of course. It is important that companies realize Open Innovation (OI) is an innovation in itself so it’s important that OI is managed from the onset so it can be easily introduced. I have identified the three main issues with OI adoption within companies in the pharmaceutical industry, Culture:

Adopting Open Innovation would mean doing things differently which is not easy in most large organizations especially if it’s in direct contradiction to behavior that was allowed or endorsed in the past. Furthermore it could even be a shift from a previous source of competitive advantage like in most pharmaceutical companies. So buying the vote of top management, Scientists in the traditional R&D departments it’s a huge endeavor.

Motivation: As culture is an important element for supporting change, it’s interesting to consider what incentives can be put in place to encourage people to adopt open practices. Although companies in the industry that adopt or seek to adopt OI strategies understand the importance of tapping into external knowledge, there is no cultural and practical background which enables and motivates employees to be open. There are no formal ways of career progression for someone who is an OI operative. Procedures: Cross functional working within organizations would have to increase to successfully implement OI, Independent OI teams working within the traditional organization is usually the approach most organizations take but the problem is what would the team comprise of? Would it make the traditional R&D team’s rebellious hence reducing productivity? There should be a right balance between independence and integration which is not always as easy as it sounds. There are also other external factors to consider that make this a potential difficult issue for companies, for example how do companies in the industry deal with growth or Mergers and acquisitions which is very rampant in the industry at the moment, who gets paid for goodwill, who owns the intellectual property rights are factors to also consider. Conclusion: A skeptic may say who cares about successful incorporation of OI into corporate culture when we can continue with a model that has seen us gain unprecedented success in the past. The answer is that to be competitive in the future you have to be open. OI is presenting a huge problem as information is becoming widely available. Ignoring this phenomenon would be a disaster. In this era of the Venture capitalist that help fund ideas, pharmaceutical companies would see the value added in quickly learning how to resolve these issues that could potentially be a source of advantage by helping them faster to market as was the case with GSK(GlaxoSmithKline). Or the opposite as was the case with IBM and its many protected patents. For example when breakthroughs occur, the scientists and engineers who made them have an outside option that they previously lacked in the days of the closed approach. If a company that funded a discovery doesn’t pursue it in a timely fashion, the people involved could pursue it on their own — in a startup financed by venture capital. So it’s in the best interest of pharmaceutical companies to focus on resolving this particular issue to stay ahead of competition.

References: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10480377 http://www.innovationtools.com/weblog/innovationblog-detail.asp?ArticleID=1449 http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/BHH09_IPR_openinnovation.pdf http://blog.cambridgeconsultants.com/consumer-products/how-do-you-implement-open-innovation/ http://www.open-innovation.net/blog/70-what-is-the-need-for-open-innovation.html http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/open-innovation-in-science-and-technology-do-you-have-the-right-people-for-the-job/ http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2003/spring/4435/the-era-of-open-innovation/ Phelps, Marshall, and David Kline. (2009). Burning the Ships: Intellectual Property and the Transformation of Microsoft. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Rivette, Kevin G. and David Kline. (2000). Rembrandts in the Attic. Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

OPEN INNOVATION IN THE BIO-PHARMA INDUSTRY: Current Knowledge and Background:

Executive Summary: Open Innovation is a powerful framework encompassing the generation, capture, and employment of intellectual property at the firm level. Finding creative ways to exploit internal innovation, incorporating external innovation into internal development and also motivating outsiders to supply an ongoing stream of external innovations is no easy task in the bio-pharma industry. For reasons I have earlier stated in the first half of this white paper. This challenge obviously presents us with a paradox, why should successfully pharmaceutical companies largely employing the closed model spend money on R&D efforts if the results of these efforts are available to rival firms? According to the research most contributors agree that in order to profit from open innovation or customer co-creation models, firms need not just tools and methods to acquire external knowledge and ideas for innovation, but also the establishment of internal capabilities to bring these inputs into practice. To put it succinctly suggest that most pharmaceutical firms are not ready for open innovation. See Exhibit 1. Since Henry Chesbrough (2003) introduced the concept, open innovation (OI) has taken its place as a mainstream innovation process. However many pharmaceutical firms have struggled to execute OI effectively. These has generated a lot of interest in recent years in various media ranging from trade presses to academic white papers , getting through all of these information presents an unbelievable difficulty so I’ll like to focus this paper on the general perception of the challenges , approaches and future of open innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Notice I left out successes this is because the only company in the industry effectively practicing this phenomenon is GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) and I don’t want to assume a best practice approach using GSK as a benchmark because companies in this industry possess different characteristics and face significantly different challenges especially as its highly regulated.

Introduction: Most of the comments on the issue of Open innovation while doing my research suggest that there are different approaches to open innovation and not one model it’s sufficient in itself to make the process work. OI is based on collaborative relationships- organizational alliances and partnerships focused on catalyzing innovation for all participants. To access all the promise of OI, organizations need tools and processes that allow them to fully exploit OI opportunities. While some advocates of Open Innovation would argue that open innovation provides organization with a new way of thinking and provides a means for competitive advantage citing the Connect and develop model adopted by Procter and Gamble. The less enthusiastic would suggest it’s not sustainable as it presents unprecented levels of complexity especially with IP and also as companies’ executives often end up focusing more on internal needs than on those of the market which might end up making a company its own worst enemy. I have tried to narrow down this research to answering the question why would firms in the bio-pharma industry contribute resources, including IP to projects that will benefit others, including their competitors. I am especially concerned with the knowledge of strategies that firms employ to help address the management challenges of open innovation.

1. The Challenges of the Open Innovation Paradigm: Employing a successful Open innovation approach requires firms to realign innovation strategies to extend beyond the boundaries of the firm, while creating mechanisms for appropriating value from the combined innovation (West and Gallagher, 2006). Based on the definition of open innovation, research shows that in practice the integration of internal and external innovation entails three challenges summarily: Maximizing returns to internal innovation: Pharmaceutical firms need a wide range of approaches to OI to maximize the returns to internal innovation- not just feeding the company’s product pipeline, but also outbound licensing of intellectual property. Another concern to open innovation is how to use existing R&D capabilities to maximum advantage, capabilities that include building absorptive capacity to identify external innovations. Research suggest that successful firms for example GSK identify promising technologies by establishing research labs near elite research university groups with open flows of information in both directions. This is also the same with Wyeth Pharmaceuticals who have a relationship with Carnegie Mellon University for its top academic researchers Incorporating external innovations: Research also shows that the existence of external knowledge provides no benefit to a firm if it does not know how to incorporate it or identify relevant knowledge and incorporate it into its innovation activities. This requires a lot of absorptive capacity and political willingness from the top executives of the firm towards external innovation. A firm that was once successful in a closed model may find this difficult to incorporate. A good example of where external innovation was incorporate successfully was with Wyeth pharmaceuticals where it used its external academic relationships to reduce the time it spent on drugs with unmarketable potential. Another issue with incorporation in the bio-pharma industry is culture change, most scientists love to be the next big thing, so getting them to open requires a lot of incentives and culture change which might not be easily achieved. Motivating Spillovers: With external innovation there is often an assumption that sources of external innovation would continue to produce them. Motivating individuals to generate and contribute their IP in the absence of financial returns is a management challenge for open innovation. In addition spillovers to a direct competitor are more problematic but are still economically rational under the model of coopetition. There is a wide range of challenges for open innovation being discussed but the above three encompasses most of them.

2. Good Practices in Open Innovation: A set of twelve core good practices for collaborative innovation has been developed to access the key inputs to the open innovation system. Most of the other information on best practices are somewhat encompassed in this model. The “Want, Find, Get, Manage” model was developed by Gene Slowinski and Matthew W. Sagal in 2004, this model offers a framework for describing best or good practices for OI. The model emerged from work with the pharmaceutical industry in the 1990’s but its largely applicable in other industries. The effort begins with the question: What does a firm want to meets its growth objective? Once the wants are identified the firm must then find the necessary asset to meet its growth objectives, once the firm realizes not all of its assets in house can generate the wanted growth capacity it must venture out to get it through collaborative relationships and manage the Open Innovation relationship to success. Thoughtful application of these practices to a firm’s needs and context would consistently produce results. Good practices in the want phase: An effective want phase requires assessing tradeoff between internal development and external collaboration • Incorporate external thinking into strategic planning process • Convert planning outcomes into a set of prioritized want briefs • Utilize a structured process for choice of partner Good practices in the find phase: This stage is focused on locating the right external assets for the particular need of the firm • Look inside first • Treat the find effort as a bilateral process

Good practices in the get phase: • Establish and maintain internal alignment • Structure the process for internal planning and negotiations • Negotiate with a focus on a win-win-lose-lose-lose Good practices in the management phase: • Hold a kick-off session to enable integration of management systems • Ensure partnering firms have the same understanding of the operating principles • Train managers on both sides in the principles of conflict resolution.

3. Future Open Innovation/ Knowledge gaps: With the economy softening, it's tempting for companies to turn off the lights and shut the door on innovation efforts until things pick up. But while this might look like a smart move, the impact—lost momentum, team dispersion, and wasted investments—is less than desirable. It doesn't have to be this way. One of the best options for recessionary times, and, some would argue, even in expansive times, is to join forces with another entity with complementary innovation goals. Open innovation is about connecting with others to find new ideas and, often, to co-develop and co-market them. There are many examples of successful open innovation efforts in the bio pharmaceutical industry today. Bayer with its creative center, Eli Lily and its innocentive initiative and Pfizer with the in-licensed drug Lipitor while some take the form of pan-industry innovation networks that share in the risks and rewards of their findings. Others are straightforward co-development projects between strategic players. (Jeanane Rae, March 2008). With that in mind firms not leveraging on open innovation during all stages of its product life cycle are encouraged to do so as open innovation is yielding significant, measurable success for companies not only in the pharmaceutical industry but across industries.

References: Gassman, O., Reepmeyer, G. and von Zedtwitz, M.(2008) Leading pharmaceutical Innovation, 2nd edition Berlin: Springer Oliver Gassman, Ellen Enkel and Henry Chesborough.(2010). The future of Open Innovation. Chesborough, H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School publishing. Lindergaard, S .(2010) Open Innovation : The Side Effects .The Bloomberg Business Week Joel West and Scott Gallagher. (2006) Open Innovation: Challenges of Open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in Open-source software. Gene Slowinski and Matthew W. Sagal. (2010). Good Practices in open Innovation. Research Technology Management 0895-6308/10 – Industrial research institute. Gassman, o., Enkel , E. (2004) Towards a theory of Open innovation: three core process archetypes. Procedding of the R&D Management conference, Lisbon , Portugal, July 6-9 Henry Chesborough, Melissa M Apple yard (2007) : Open Innovation and Strategy , California Management review Vol 50, No 1 Fall 2007 http://www.15inno.com/2010/03/29/oibigpharma/ http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2010/id2010063_908184.htm http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2009/id20091123_319784.htm

[edit] How to Implement Open Innovation : A pharmaceutical industry white paper

Executive Summary:

Across the board, Firms in the pharmaceutical industry have struggled with the speed at which drugs can be brought to market. Time is money, which means to appropriately serve and protect humanity pharmaceutical companies need to manage data, process information, analyze chemicals faster. The ability to rapidly serve humanity while maximizing profits or minimizing loss is critical. The prize for second place is reducing in a highly competitive oligopolistic market as humanity seeks faster ways to solve its medical problems. Hence the need to look outside for ways to enhance and improve innovation. This whitepaper seeks the answer the question: I want to implement open innovation- where should I start and what should I do? This whitepaper would be particularly relevant to CEO’s, CTO’s and most especially R&D managers and presidents as they are called in most pharmaceutical firms. Many firms would also ask the question Why Open innovation anyways; afterall we’ve sustained and maintained leadership using our closed innovation models while strictly containing our intellectual property. The simple answer is this Open innovation represents an opportunity to improve innovation capabilities and confront Business challenges of the future. The internet has changed the game here; the flow of information is faster, so it’s fair to say heavily guarded secrets might not be so for too long, one might think of the wikileaks situation if not thoroughly convinced. To many the Open Innovation means different things, for some it signifies a new way of working or an evolution on a way to do thing but one thing is clear it is important to develop a common language and tools to implement open innovation that can increase the successful commercialization if ideas. But in more general terms Open Innovation is a strategy by which companies allow a flow of knowledge across their boundaries as they look for ways to enhance their innovation capability. Company boundaries become permeable, enabling the matching and integration of resources between the company and external collaborators. In a closed approach to innovation, a company relies on external resources only. There are various perspectives on how to resolve or implement open innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, this whitepaper presents a unique perspective on the factors that make open innovation successful and how it can be incorporated into an organization.

Description of the Issue, context, Motivation:

The issues surrounding Open innovation in the pharmaceutical industry is unprecedented ranging from Ownership of Intellectual property rights to even basic hardware components. This paper focuses on difficulties arising when implementing an Open Innovation model in a historically closed corporate culture as it is the case in most firms in the pharmaceutical industry until now of course. So most companies ask themselves how we implement open innovation. There are various approaches to Open Innovation but most don’t seem to understand the real issues are beyond the frameworks and models as they only make suggestions based on the past. The real issues are managerial and they must be well aligned with the Structure, Culture, Tasks and Resources available at the organization.

Industry Trends

To further understand the motivation behind these white paper lets put a perspective on some industry trends. The industry wide average time for researching and developing a drug from discovery to market place takes from 12 to 15 years. The length of this development cycle often left a drug with fewer than 5 years of patent protection at the time it entered the market. The average out of pocket cost for R&D ranged from $500million to $1.1B, for drugs like HIV it could go up to $2B. and the number of new molecular entities coming into the market was also reducing which was a concern for the firms in the industry as the FDA was approving less and less NME’s. A top pharmaceutical company was fortunate it managed to produce one or two blockbuster drugs with annual sales of over $1B, every few years in spite of spending billions on Research and Development. Yet estimates has shown that each of the top pharmaceutical companies needed between 2 to 5 blockbuster drugs per year to meet sales targets and satisfy investors. Moreover most drugs never recoup their development costs and only 10% of firm’s products ever achieve blockbuster status. Finally greater costs consciousness in worldwide markets puts tremendous pressure on pharmaceutical companies to get more value out of the R&D process. Furthermore, once a blockbuster drug lost patent protection, there were open to competition from generic versions of the same compounds which often had prices that were as little as 10% for equivalent branded products and public acceptance of generic substitutes has been growing steadily for example in 1995, penetration of generic drugs amounted to 43% of the market and it was 56% as at 2004. All of these pressures facing the industry is a motivation for open innovation, some of the firms in the industry have also made an attempt at consolidation on their own, one can point at examples such as the merger between Pfizer and Pharmacia and the merger between GlaxoWellcome and SmithKline. The R&D Process

It’s obvious the R&D process is one of the most important areas that would be affected by the Open Innovation process, let’s have a quick run through of the R&D process.

The first step in the drug discovery process was pre-discovery research in which scientists would try to understand the biology of a specific disease and then try to understand drug targets. Once a specific target was then identified scientists would then begin to look for the molecules that stood the best chance of hitting that target. In the earliest stages of this process drug companies might screen more than 1 million molecules before identifying a particular lead compound. Then they move into the next phase called Lead optimization, the lead is then evaluated and modified through animal testing to determine whether or not it should become a development track (DT) compound and go into the next stage of testing, the number of development track compounds represents less than 1% of the initially screened compounds. This initial stage of discovery research from exploratory to DT can take up to a decade but on average between 4 to 7 years. Following discovery a DT entered preclinical evaluation- typically for a period of about one year in these stage scientists usually tested the toxicology of the compounds and to see how the body absorbed it. About 60% of these would be deemed good enough to test on humans and at these stages the drug company would file an IND (investigational new drug) with the FDA. After FDA approval phase I used to evaluate safety could then begin. Phase 1 usually took about a year with estimated costs of about $15million. 70% of drugs tested in phase I usually made it to phase II. Phase II is testing the ability of the drug to fight the disease and also test dosage options usually lasted 2 years with a cost of about $30 million . Historically about 50% of the drugs that entered phase II would make it to Phase III. Where the drug is tested on a larger human population which roughly takes about 3 years with cost of about $100million. After phase III the drug was then submitted to the FDA for approval which took another 2-3 years before approval if any at all. 65% of drugs that make it to phase III get approval. Having understood the trends in the industry and the R&D process it is obvious some issues need to be addressed most importantly time wasted in the initial stages and also revenue spent in a declining economy. There comes to motivation for Open innovation, A few of the initial process that take many years can be easily outsourced in a partnership to reduce development time and cost while increasing innovation and keeping quality.

Position/Perspective

While so many academics have come up with different positions on how to implement open innovation in the pharm-industry I believe no one seeks to address the major issue which has plagued the industry for years and its simply what’s the motivation to go open that exceeds beyond being faster to market and making quicker profits. I believe this motivation has to be internal more than the external partnerships that most people would suggest. I believe an organization has to find a new way to incentivize its internal resources towards openness simply by tying each other’s faith to the process of being open. For example Scientists historically have worked in silos, in order to make them more collaborative, R&D presidents could devise an incentive system where collaboration with other scientists was rewarded, say no scientists got a bonus until the organization achieved 15 Development Track compounds in a year, this way all scientists would be incentivized to collaborate to help achieve a common goal in the development process. I believe in order to implement open innovation successfully; R&D managers have to think about these 4 major internal factors: Culture: Adopting Open Innovation would mean doing things differently which is not easy in most large organizations especially if it’s in direct contradiction to behavior that was allowed or endorsed in the past. Furthermore it could even be a shift from a previous source of competitive advantage like in most pharmaceutical companies. Changing the culture of the organization and enforcing a new way of doing things from the business side of the organization to the R&D side of the organization is highly critical. Also the buy in of top-management also has to be considered as it goes a long way in convincing the rest of the organization in what direction the organization needs to go. Motivation: As culture is an important element for supporting change, it’s interesting to consider what incentives can be put in place to encourage people to adopt open practices. Although companies in the industry that adopt or seek to adopt OI strategies understand the importance of tapping into external knowledge, there is no cultural and practical background which enables and motivates employees to be open. There are no formal ways of career progression for someone who is an OI operative. So its important to consider a way of moving the organization in the same direction by providing adequate motivation and incentives to reinforce the new culture of the organization. Procedures: Cross functional working within organizations would have to increase to successfully implement OI, Independent OI teams working within the traditional organization is usually the approach most organizations take but the problem is what would the team comprise of? Would it make the traditional R&D team’s rebellious hence reducing productivity? There should be a right balance between independence and integration which is not always as easy as it sounds. There are also other external factors to consider that make this a potential difficult issue for companies, for example how do companies in the industry deal with growth or Mergers and acquisitions which is very rampant in the industry at the moment, who gets paid for goodwill, who owns the intellectual property rights are factors to also consider. Skills and Resources: An organization cannot have a perfect blend of skills and resources to implement Open innovation. However lack of an appropriate skills blend is essential so as not to stifle the implementation, much training is essentially needed, especially for traditional scientists who do not usually work in collaboration. All of the above have to be in alignment to successfully implement open Innovation in any organization.

Recommendation Any organization willing to implement Open Innovation should do the following - Initiate a new way of working:

o This typically entails making bold statements from the Top about the collaboration effort by clearly defining the drug discovery process to the whole organization to create transparency. Detailed documentation of each discovery phase should be distributed to both the business and technical side of the organization.

- Clearly defined targets:

o Firms in the industry should provide clearly defined targets and by targets I mean targets greater than they have originally been working the reason behind that is the logic that if firms are supposed to be Open requiring more resources from outside its important the organizations sets targets that push the limit of creativity of scientists because imploring the same targets with more help does not provide sufficient pressure to promote both internal collaboration and external collaboration

- Incentives:

o This is the most important of all recommendations for a drug company it’s important to create incentives for scientists that would usually work in silos to start collaboration. A good way to start would be to tie all incentives together from the business side to the organization and the R&D side: for example if a target of 15DT’s is set yearly then everyone knew they had to achieve this to get any compensation, this way there is incentive to collaborate as everyone’s skin is potentially in the game as your future is tied to mine.

- Internal portfolio Management:

o To drive towards better collaboration, Scientists and business people should be encouraged to be part of multiple teams. This way for example a scientist in both the pre-clinical team and cardiovascular team would know exactly what the other team would require from the clinical team that way there is no misunderstanding and wasted time as both teams know what is required to get a marketable drug out there.

- External collaboration:

o External collaborations are tremendously important but OI does not work well if the internal alignment is not in place. External collaborations must be targeted, for example A firm in the industry could work with Universities in the initial exploratory stage to reduce the amount of years it takes to get to the Development Track stage. This way the issue of intellectual property is mitigated.

- Recognition measures:

o R&D managers need to then set clear measures on how star performers would be recognized so as not discourage the star performers as their incentives are basically tied to that of others.

There is no right or wrong answers for implementing Open Innovation but an R&D manager could use the above as a starting thought process towards achieving a successful model, if internal staff were encouraged to collaborate with a clear target and well defined incentives, it could help foster innovation better when the organization has to look outside its doors for Innovation.

References

Bob Ruffolo, “ Bob Ruffolo discusses the rhythm of drug development” Interview by Katherine E. Barnes, Drug Discovery Today 9, No 15(2004) : 632 Healthcare: Pharmaceuticals: Industry surverys: Standard and Poors Industry surveys: May 2006 via Netadvantage: http://www.netadvatage.standardandpoor.com. Phelps, Marshall, and David Kline. (2009). Burning the Ships: Intellectual Property and the Transformation of Microsoft. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Rivette, Kevin G. and David Kline. (2000). Rembrandts in the Attic. Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Gassman, O., Reepmeyer, G. and von Zedtwitz, M.(2008) Leading pharmaceutical Innovation, 2nd edition Berlin: Springer Oliver Gassman, Ellen Enkel and Henry Chesborough.(2010). The future of Open Innovation. Chesborough, H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School publishing. Lindergaard, S .(2010) Open Innovation : The Side Effects .The Bloomberg Business Week Joel West and Scott Gallagher. (2006) Open Innovation: Challenges of Open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in Open-source software. Gene Slowinski and Matthew W. Sagal. (2010). Good Practices in open Innovation. Research Technology Management 0895-6308/10 – Industrial research institute. Gassman, o., Enkel , E. (2004) Towards a theory of Open innovation: three core process archetypes. Procedding of the R&D Management conference, Lisbon , Portugal, July 6-9 Henry Chesborough, Melissa M Apple yard (2007) : Open Innovation and Strategy , California Management review Vol 50, No 1 Fall 2007 http://www.15inno.com/2010/03/29/oibigpharma/ http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jun2010/id2010063_908184.htm http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/nov2009/id20091123_319784.htm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10480377 http://www.innovationtools.com/weblog/innovationblog-detail.asp?ArticleID=1449 http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/BHH09_IPR_openinnovation.pdf http://blog.cambridgeconsultants.com/consumer-products/how-do-you-implement-open-innovation/ http://www.open-innovation.net/blog/70-what-is-the-need-for-open-innovation.html http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/open-innovation-in-science-and-technology-do-you-have-the-right-people-for-the-job/ http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2003/spring/4435/the-era-of-open-innovation/