Enrico Baraldi

The quantitative journey in a qualitative landscape: developing a data collection model and a quantitative methodology in business network studies

The point of departure for this article is a newly established international research project focusing on industrial networks in the European furniture industry. The article offers an account of a theoretical journey starting from a qualitative analytical frame and leading to the development of a quantitative “data collection model” and the initial definition of an “explanatory model”. Even though the aforementioned project also includes qualitative elements, such as case studies, the focus of this article is nonetheless only on the common and standardised part which is explicitly quantitative and was developed in order to achieve homogeneity and comparability across different countries. More than merely presenting the results of this theoretical effort, the purpose is to offer a dynamic idea of how the model, the theoretical framework and the methodology issues evolved and had to be modified and adapted to each other. In this case, the usual research design development process presents even more interesting features, given the participation of various actors and hence the “networked” nature of the effort.

USER-RELATED COMPLEXITY DIMENSIONS OF COMPLEX PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS (CoPS): A CASE OF IMPLEMENTING AN ERP SYSTEM

What can cause five postponements and a delay of two years in introducing a relatively simple ERP system that usually takes only a few months to be implemented? We find the answer to this puzzle by highlighting the context of use of this high technology IT capital good, an issue so far overlooked because the literature on complex product system (CoPS) focuses on the intrinsic dimensions of the product and the provider. We rely on an extensive case study of the ERP system Movex at the furniture manufacturer Edsbyn and on literature on user-related innovations, organisational studies and inter-firm relationships to extract a series of additional user-related complexity dimensions. These include the importance of the capital good for the user, the users perception of its complexity and the strength and complexity of the routines to be changed at the using organisation. We conclude the paper with implications for complex systems providers.

Good for science, but which implications for business? An analysis of the managerial implications in high-impact B2B marketing articles published between 2003 and 2012

Purpose – This article aims to analyze a set of features in the managerial implications of the most-cited business-to-business (B2B) marketing articles which are related to their managerial relevance. The purpose is to further identify which are the most recurrent features of managerial implications, as well as the connections between such features. Finally, the articles aim to verify if these features of managerial implications vary depending on the scientific impact of the article. Design/methodology/approach – The 60 most-cited articles were selected from both generalist and specialized academic journals and a content analysis was conducted. Then the article assesses the formal features (e.g. dedicated space), the language (e.g. consulting or normative), the translation of scientific results (e.g. message efficacy) and such other features as time orientation, specificity and abstraction of the managerial implications in these high-impact articles. The article also analyses patterns and associations bet...

Configurations and control of resource interfaces in industrial networks

The role of management control has not received sufficient attention in the literature on value creation so far. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the role of control in value creation in industrial networks. More specifically, the aim is to examine the management and control of interfaces between key resources within and between firms, in the networks surrounding firms, when they attempt to create value. All the firms that take part in a value-creation process have both formal and informal control systems: these firms have budgets, specific routines, reward systems, and sanctioned “ways to behave.” The paper relates the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) groups research on interaction, relationships, and networks with control literature, and presents a framework for controlling resource interfaces in a network setting. Two in-depth cases illustrate the role of control in value creation. The first case covers the development of a low-weight newspaper grade that Holmen and its paper mill Hallsta initiated. The second case examines the attempt to develop and commercialize a new, energy efficient pulping technology.

To the G20: incentivising antibacterial research and development

www.thelancet.com/infection Published online July 6, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30404-8 1 The antibiotic pipeline is insufficient. For example, only about five truly novel antibiotic classes are in clinical development for critical or high unmet public health needs defined by WHO. Given attrition rates, only two of these antibiotic classes are likely to receive regulatory approval during the next 7 years. The earlier, preclinicalphase pipeline is hard to assess, but might include more than a dozen novel antibiotics. However, their chances of success are even more remote than those currently in development, and are probably more than a decade away from being approved. Meanwhile, resistance rates to the world’s current stock of antibiotics are rising, not only threatening the ability to treat infections, but also jeopardising the ability of modern health-care to safely treat cancer and undertake many surgeries. Deliberate and coordinated action is needed now to ensure continuous availability of effective antibiotics. In 2016, the G20 committed to “unlock research and development into new and existing antimicrobials from a G20 value-added perspective”. DRIVE-AB, a 3-year research project financed by the European Union’s Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), is close to concluding its work on incentives and policies to stimulate innovation, sustainable use, and equitable availability of novel antibiotics to meet unmet public health needs. In this Comment, we summarise some of DRIVE-AB’s findings that are pertinent to the G20 commitments, including a market entry reward (MER). DRIVE-AB’s complete findings will be published and presented at the DRIVE-AB conference in Brussels on Sept 5–6, 2017. These include detailed findings and recommendations regarding new economic models, the societal value of antibiotics, forecasting the development of resistance, and responsible use measures. Incentives to stimulate antibacterial innovation can be grouped into two types: push incentives that pay for the research and development (R&D), and pull incentives that reward an outcome such as regulatory approval. Substantial investments are already occurring to push innovation, including grant financing—eg, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, IMI, Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance, the Horizon 2020 research programme, and most recently the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator and the Global Antibiotic R&D Partnership, which acts as a virtual developer. These efforts are laudable, necessary, and must continue. They ensure that the pipeline is directed at public health needs. Yet the success of these initiatives in bringing novel antibiotics to market depends on continued private investment. Our stakeholder analyses identify that the willingness of companies and other private investors to invest in antibacterial R&D is primarily driven by anticipated market rewards—ie, the pull incentives. The traditional pull incentive is revenues from unitbased sales. Yet for new antibiotics, revenues alone might not be sufficient to encourage companies to invest in the development of new antibiotics. In clinical practice, novel antibiotics should be reserved for use against bacteria that are resistant to existing antibiotics. If infection prevention efforts are successful, such infections might be relatively rare, so sales volumes will be low. Therefore, new pull incentives are needed that effectively reward innovation and reduce revenues derived from sales volume—a so-called delinked model. Without an effective pull incentive, private sector investment will continue to decline, and the few remaining companies will leave antibacterial R&D, further diminishing innovation. To the G20: incentivising antibacterial research and development

An assessment of the future impact of alternative technologies on antibiotics markets

BackgroundThe increasing threat of antimicrobial resistance combined with the paucity of new classes of antibiotics represents a serious public health challenge. New treatment technologies could, in theory, have a significant impact on the future use of traditional antibiotics, be it by facilitating rational and responsible use or by product substitution in the existing antibiotics markets, including by reducing the incidence of bacterial infections through preventative approaches. The aim of this paper is to assess the potential of alternative technologies in reducing clinical use of and demand for antibiotics, and to briefly indicate which segments of the antibiotics market that might be impacted by these technologies.MethodsAn initial mapping exercise to identify the alternative technologies was followed by a review of relevant published and grey literature (n = 52). We also carried out stakeholder engagement activities by a round-table discussion with infectious disease specialists and a multi-criteria decision analysis exercise with pharmaceutical industry experts.ResultsTen alternative technologies were identified and analyzed for their potential impact on the antibiotics market. Of these, rapid point-of-care diagnostics, vaccines, fecal microbiota transplantation, and probiotics were considered to have a “high” or “medium” potential impact over a 10-20 year horizon. Therapeutic antibodies, antibiotic biomaterials, bacteriophages, antimicrobial nanoparticles, antimicrobial peptides, and anti-virulence materials were rated as having “low” potential impact.ConclusionDespite the apparent potential of the most promising alternative technologies to reduce demand, that reduction will likely only happen in limited segments of the antibiotics market or, in the case of preventing community acquired streptococcal infections by vaccination, in a low-price generics market segment. Thus, alternative technologies are not expected to represent any disincentive to antibiotics developers. Finally, it is unlikely that alternative technologies will displace the need for new classes, and sub-classes, of antibiotics in the short and medium terms.

Antibiotic Pipeline Coordinators

The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research and development (R&D) of new antibiotics. Every pathogen on this list requires R&D activity, but some are more attractive for private sector investments, as evidenced by the current antibacterial pipeline. A “pipeline coordinator” is a governmental/non-profit organization that closely tracks the antibacterial pipeline and actively supports R&D across all priority pathogens employing new financing tools.

The role of policy in innovation: The challenging distribution of social, material and monetary benefits

Purpose Contemporary innovation policy investments rests on the assumption that the main problematic interface is the one between the non-business developing setting and a rather friction-free producer and user setting. Given a business landscape characterized by interdependencies, any innovation attempt will be faced with complex interfaces also within and among all these settings. The purpose of this paper is to shed light over this issue through the investigation of the interface between policy and a specific innovation journey. The attention is directed to the creation and distribution of social-material values; and the translation of these values into a monetary dimension. Design/methodology/approach To fulfill this aim the authors utilize an empirical study on the commercialization of university research results in the field of solar power technology, based on the ARA model as a conceptual and methodological foundation, with a focus on the establishment of resource combinations, activity links and actor bonds in the involved developing, producing and using settings. In order to pin-point the creation of social-material values and the establishment of a monetary dimension the authors used a model adapted from Hakansson and Olsen (2015). Findings From a national policy perspective, the transnational nature of innovation processes and the connectedness of resources across different, often far-away places, entail a loss of control on the social-material and monetary benefits of innovation; even more so if the policy of one country stands against that of another country. Still, not only policy but also representatives for academic research and business seem to consider the transnational aspect as an exception. Research limitations/implications Due to that the embedding in the user setting did not occur as expected; with the Swedish focal firm as main interface, but from a Chinese firm that the authors did not have access to, the main focus is on the developing and the producing setting, while the embedding in the user setting is covered through indirect information. Practical implications The role that established production structures have for the embedding of innovations into producing and using settings seems to be neglected in policy circles – although these have a strong impact on the creation of social-material value and a monetary flow. Social implications See practical implication. Originality/value The paper underlines the impact of interfaces with established production structures for the creation of social-material value and monetary flow – and for transnational dimension of the innovation journey.

Exploring the Obstacles to Implementing Economic Mechanisms to Stimulate Antibiotic Research and Development A Multi-Actor and System-Level Analysis

This Article examines the potential stakeholder-related obstacles hindering the implementation of mechanisms to re-ignite the development of novel antibiotics. Proposed economic models and incentives to drive such development include: Public Funding of Research and Development (“R&D”), Tax Incentives, Milestone Prizes, End Payments, Intellectual Property (“IP”) and Exclusivity Extensions, Pricing and Reimbursement Incentives, Product Development Partnerships (“PDPs”), and the Options Market for Antibiotics model. Drawing on personal experience and understanding of the antibiotic field, as well as stakeholder consultation and numerous expert meetings within the DRIVE-AB project and Uppsala Health Summit 2015, the Authors identify obstacles attributable to the following actors: Universities and Research Institutes, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (“SMEs”), Large Pharmaceutical Companies, Marketing Approval Regulators, Payors, Healthcare Providers, National Healthcare Authorities, Patients, and Supranational Institutions. The analysis also proposes a characterization and ranking of the difficulty associated with implementing the reviewed mechanisms. Public Funding of R&D, Pricing and Reimbursement Incentives, and PDPs are mechanisms expected to meet highly systemic barriers (i.e., obstacles across the entire antibiotic value chain), imposing greater implementation challenges in that they require convincing and involving several motivationally diverse actors in order to have much effect.

Research funders’ roles and perceived responsibilities in relation to the implementation of clinical research results: a multiple case study of Swedish research funders

BackgroundImplementation of clinical research results is challenging, yet the responsibility for implementation is seldom addressed. The process from research to the use of clinical research results in health care can be facilitated by research funders. In this paper, we report the roles of ten Swedish research funders in relation to implementation and their views on responsibilities in implementation.FindingsTen cases were studied and compared using semi-structured interviews. In addition, websites and key documents were reviewed. Eight facilitative roles for research funders in relation to the implementation of clinical research results were identified. Three of them were common for several funders: “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of knowledge.” Moreover, the research funders identified six different actors responsible for implementation, five of which belonged to the healthcare setting. Collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities among the identified actors responsible for implementation.ConclusionsThe roles commonly identified by the Swedish funders, “Advocacy work,” “Monitoring implementation outcomes,” and “Dissemination of knowledge,” seem feasible facilitative roles in relation to the implementation of clinical research results. However, many actors identified as responsible for implementation together with the fact that collective and organizational responsibilities were the most common forms of responsibilities entail a risk of implementation becoming no one’s responsibility.