Do regional collaborations matter in biomedicine? The case of Western Sweden
description
Transcript of Do regional collaborations matter in biomedicine? The case of Western Sweden
Do regional collaborations matter in biomedicine?
The case of Western Sweden
Jens Laage-HellmanIMIT and RIDE at Chalmers University of Technology
Annika RickneIMIT, The Dahmén Institute and Lund University
Background”Interactive research” on a regional development project (”Biomedical Development in Western Sweden”)
Purpose: study the dynamic mechanisms involved in RIS development
Underlying theoretical approach: Innovation systemsFunctional approach
Research activities:•Documentation of the early history•Survey to biomedical firms•Survey to biomedical researchers
Present paper: collaboration patterns in industry
Research puzzleThe interactive character of the innovation process•Acquisition and development of knowledge/resources•Learning•Customers/users, suppliers, universities…•Esp. In science-based and knowledge-intensive industries
The importance of regional collaboration/networking•Tacit nature of knowledge•Regions are the locus of innovation•Proximity matters!•Clustering of firms (e.g. in biotech)•Advantageous for individual firms to locate in strong clusters/RIS
The role of globalised collaboration/networking
Research questionsMain question: Do regional collaborations matter in biomedicine?
Specific issues:
•How does the firms value different types of knowledge?
•Through what types of channels is knowledge identified and acquired?
•What is the relative importance of different types of partners?
•What are the reasons for collaboration?
•To what extent is the geographical dimension important?
Research design
• Case: a) biomedicine, b) Western Sweden• Data collection: a) survey, b) complementing
interviews
Number Response rate
Total sample 222 35 % (78 firms)
Firms with R&D 123 46 % (57 firms)
Firms without R&D 99 21% (21 firms)
The collaborative patterns in biomedicine: Crucial types of knowledge & their sources
What types of knowledge is important for the company
1 2 3 4 5 6
Technological
Market
Application-specific
Scientific
Production
Design
Distribution/ logistics
1=Completely disagree 6=Completely agree
The importance of various channels for identification and acquisition of new knowledge areas and technologies
1 2 3 4 5 6
Recruitment from university
Cooperation with universities
Acquisition of other firms
Recruitment from industry
Cooperation with other firms
Acquisition of licenses
Patent analysis
Research reports & scientific journals
Participation in trade associations
Participation in EU-funded research projects
Conferences
1= Not important 6= Crucial
Patterns of collaboration How important are different types of organisations?
1 2 3 4 5 6
Customers
Suppliers
Universities
Producers of complementaryproducts/services
Research institutes
Healthcare providers
Public organisations
Competitiors
1=Not important 6=Crucial
How many partners does the firm have?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Competitiors Publicorganisations
Healthcareproviders
Researchinstitutes
Producers ofcomplementary
products orservices
Universities Customers Suppliers
Percentageof firms
0 1-3 4-10 11-20 >20
Cooperation for scientific projects and publications
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Never Seldom Sometimes Often
Motives for collaboration with companies
Our company collaborates with other firms to
Manufacture finalproducts
Marketproducts/services
Develop newtechnologies
Acquirecomponents/materials
Acquire newtechnologies
Never Often
Motives for collaboration with universities
Our company collaborates with universities and research institutes to
Develop newtechnologies
Acquire new technologies
Acquirecomponents/materials
Market products/services
Manufacture finalproducts
Never Often
Location of partners How imporant are partners in different locations
Europe
Region
Sweden
North America
Asia
1=Not important 6=Crucial
Main location of partners (industrial and health care)
Our firm collaborates with other
14%
6%
9%
19%
18%
19%
31%
21%
13%
29%
18%
29%
38%
36%
45%
33%
6%
24%
10%
9%
5%
19%
9%
13%
19%
9%
24%
61% 13%
Pharma firms
Diagnostic firms
Medtech firms
Biotech supply firms
C linical researchorganisations
Healthcare providers
I n the region I n Sweden I n Europe I n North America Elsewhere
Location of partnering universities and research institutes
Our firm collaborates with universities and research units
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
In the region In Sweden In Europe In NorthAmerica
In Asia Elsewhere
Percenatge of firms
Never Seldom Sometimes Often Don’t know
Discussion and conclusions1. Collaboration with business partners
a/ Customers
•Important R&D partners
•Usually located outside the region- small region/country + niche products- ”borne globals”- need for country-specific adaptations
•Important for small/young firms to have pioneering customers nearby (e.g. Sahlgrenska University Hospital)
b/ Suppliers
•Almost as important as customers (ESI)
•Spurred by increasing ”outsourcing” (esp. medtech)
•Advantageous to have local suppliers (esp. for SMEs) …..but often difficult to find
•Lack of ”critical mass” in the industry: stimulate entry of supplier firms
b/ Suppliers
•Almost as important as customers (ESI)
•Spurred by increasing ”outsourcing” (esp. medtech)
•Advantageous to have local suppliers (esp. for SMEs) …..but often difficult to find
•Lack of ”critical mass” in the industry: stimulate entry of supplier firms
Some policy-implications (business partners)•HC organ. that is open to industry collaboration•Not enough to support collaboration within the region•Need to support internationalisation of SME•Support of local industry should include suppliers
2. Universities
Almost as important as the business partners, but in a different way•Science-based industry•Basic technology (inventions or knowledge)
Regional partners are important•Creation of new firms (USOs)•Cooperation opportunities for established firms
Tacit knowledge need for proximityNatural for USOs, but important to broaden the interface
The Oulo case: tight U-I networking strong cluster
3. Other biomedical firms
Relatively little collaboration between biomedical firms in the region
Specialisation in different technology/product areas
One exception: biomaterials and cell therapy cluster
Concluding remark
Yes, regional collaborations matter in biomedicine – to some extent
The role of regional universitiesEsp. for SMEs
Business partners: regional collaboration is less important
Biomedical industry
Broad definition
Firms involved in development, manufacturing and/or marketing of:
•Pharmaceuticals•Medical devices (incl. aids for disabled)•”Biotech supply” products•Clinical/contract research services
Biomedical industry in Western Sweden
More than 200 biomedical firmsSix large firms: one pharma
five medtech
Three sub-sectors:
Pharma: one giant; few others
Medtech: many companies (large – small)fragmentedcluster in biomaterials (+ cell therapy)
”Biotech supply”: no large companies some small companies
R&D and innovation activities
R&D expenditures: Spend more than 10% on R&D: 60% of the firmsSpend more than 20% on R&D: 38% of the firms
(75% spend less than 10 man-years)
Mainly product development 95% of the firms
Scientific work: 60% of the firms
Radical innovations: 80%Incremental innovations: 80%
75% run 1-3 projects
SA/SUHChalmers
Nobel Biocare
Integration Diagnostics
Brånemark Integration
Cochlear
Integrum
Artimplant PromimicTendera
Biopolymer products
Mölnlycke HC
Vitrolife
Cellartis
Cell Matrix
Astra Tech
Arterion
Arcam
Samba Sensors
Biomaterials and cell therapy cluster