Transcript Slide 1

Open Innovation In The Life Sciences: A Qualitative Study of Barriers and Enablers
M. Morys1*, N. Davie1*, R. Pigott1, T. Kann2 and R. Barker1
1Centre
for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation (CASMI), Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford. 2Kinapse Ltd, Wimbledon, London
Author for correspondence: [email protected]
Introduction
What is Open Innovation?
Over the last 20 years the life sciences industry has increased its level of ‘openness’.
Industry–academic partnerships that were once quite restricted in scope and based on
individual relationships have gradually become systematically established across
multidisciplinary areas. This began in non-economic spaces such as neglected diseases
but is now spreading to economic markets.
Open innovation can cut the cost of failure by avoiding duplication and reducing attrition,
promoting cross-sector collaborations and technological convergence, sharing risk, and
sharing best practices and data.
While the benefits and risks of open innovation have been previously explored, further
research is needed to understand the current landscape of open innovation and the
factors that contribute to it’s success.
Henry Chesbrough first coined the term ‘open innovation’ in 2003, as the idea that organisations should use both internal
and external knowledge and resources to create value. Since then, several definitions have been proposed. Here, we
describe open innovation as:
“The process of innovating with others for shared risk and reward to produce mutual benefits for each
organisation, creating new products, processes or ideas that could not otherwise have been achieved alone, or
enabling them to be achieved more quickly, cheaply or efficiently.”
This strategy is being increasingly adopted in the life sciences industry. Some of the potential advantages and
disadvantages are outlined below.
Advantages
“No single group can solve all the problems in this space. We
need to work together in partnership.”
Dr Gustavo Stolovitzky, Director, DREAM Project
Aims
The aim of this project was to:
• Understand and classify the existing collaboration landscape in life sciences
• Identify key factors in the success of collaborations
• Elaborate on success factors based on existing case studies
“I would really hate people to think that open innovation is a
theoretical exercise – it’s about getting things to market in a costeffective way. It’s about translating research better.”
Dr Martino Picardo, CEO, Stevenage BioScience Catalyst
•
•
•
•
Potentially reduced costs
Access to greater pool of knowledge
Earlier engagement of different stakeholders
Potentially reduced development time/time to market
Disadvantages
•
•
•
•
Potential loss of competitive advantage
Often requires forfeiture of IP
Hard to identify the most appropriate groups to work with
Difficult to manage several contributors
Open innovation is distinct from open access or open source materials, although open innovation partnerships may
choose to disseminate their work in an open access or open source manner.
Open access
Open access literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. It removes
the pricing and permission barriers imposed by subscription journals and allows unrestricted use of content.
Open source
In open source, knowledge is made freely available to the wider community, not just the partners in collaboration.
Originating in the software industry, in life sciences it implies that knowledge is shared among scientists and sometimes
the public, so that they can work together on medical innovation projects, such as developing a new drug for a neglected
disease.
Methodology
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 individuals representing 23 organisations. The interviews aimed to gather information on six topics: objectives, intellectual property, practicalities, human
factors, metrics, and evaluation. These factors were previously identified through a literature review and validated through consultation with an advisory board of 17 experts in the field of open innovation.
Transcripts of the interviews were analysed thematically by two independent researchers using NVivo 10 software. The results of this analysis were then disseminated and critiqued in a workshop run jointly by
CASMI and the Academy of Medical Sciences. A summary of that meeting, and the project as a whole are available via the Wellcome Trust at:
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@policy_communications/documents/web_document/wtp057218.pdf
Results
Four categories of factors emerged as important to the success of partnerships: cultural factors; alignment of objectives; intellectual property; and practical considerations.
1. Alignment of objectives
3. Intellectual property
Interviewees emphasized the importance of truly aligning each partner’s objectives. This is, of course, not an exclusive
feature of open innovation, but becomes steadily more critical as the number and diversity of partners increases.
Life sciences open innovation partnerships are commonly classified by their organisational structures, for example as
academic drug discovery centres, academic–industry alliances, public–private pre-competitive consortia. However this
descriptive classification fails to take into account one of the factors identified as most important by our interviewees:
that of objectives. Here we propose a new classification system based on four objectives: The development and
commercialisation of new products, networking, information sharing, and tool, standard and model development. The 45
open innovation initiatives identified fit into these categories in the following way:
Universally, IP strategy was viewed by participants as a critical factor, to be clearly
agreed at the outset – including in instances where IP “was not an issue”. Even those
upholding ‘open science’ values conceded that, in practice, some protection of
commercial interests is often a necessary compromise if commercial partners’ skills are
to be engaged. However, IP itself was not viewed as a barrier to collaboration, and many
viewed it as a critical means for facilitating it.
A prescriptive approach or blanket policy on IP was negatively viewed, and the
consensus was that IP strategies should be flexible. The examples discussed were not
necessarily onerous or costly but were tailored to suit the project and partners.
Networking
16%
Information Sharing
15%
“There are no IP-related issues in open innovation that cannot be resolved.”
Dr Martino Picardo, CEO, Stevenage BioScience Catalyst
Development and
Commercialisation of
Products
49%
4. Practical considerations
Tool, Standard and
Model Development
20%
2. Cultural factors
Interviewees indicated that cultural clashes or misunderstandings are significant challenges for open innovation. Notably:
Academia: Partners of academia described an over-perception of the value of academic discoveries by technology
transfer offices (TTOs) and academics. Conversely, despite the addition of ‘impact’ assessment to the Research
Excellence Framework (REF), some interviewees felt that current systems of reward need to better recognise
translational research. Issues include lack of funding sources and the inability to publish resulting material in high-impact
journals. Academics were also seen to be overly protective of data, more so than industry.
“I have been astonished by some of the university [technology transfer offices] in terms of their vast overperception of the value of some patents that have been invented by the researchers.”
Dr Martin Friede, Team Leader, Technology Transfer Initiative, WHO
Industry: Partners reported a focus on metrics, budgets and deliverables is unhelpful to partnerships. Industry partners
can try to control ‘open’ projects like their in-house programs. Even pharma company interviewees felt that industry has to
overcome inherent cultural norms to work effectively in open partnerships. Companies sometimes worry about
competitiveness so don’t want to disclose strategies or IP, which can lead to a feeling of mistrust.
NHS: Partners found that convincing health providers such as the NHS to accept open innovation as a benefit is
challenging when targets are focused on the immediate pressures of delivering care. The NHS is fragmented, and
competition exists between separate providers, which is a challenge for collaboration and spread of ideas. Workshop
delegates emphasised that NHS culture does not encourage or incentivise innovation and that there is a perception that
innovation comes from elsewhere. Health providers can feel like ‘junior partners’ in collaborations, particularly when they
are being used as a means of accessing patients.
References:
Chesbrough, HW (200). Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School
Press.
Suber, P (2012). Open Access. MIT Press.
This project was generously funded by the Wellcome Trust.
The authors would like to acknowledge M Roberts for her contribution.
Co-developing proposals was seen as very important by interviewees. One case study
recommended a triage model for larger collaborations, whereby partners jointly produce
an initial non-confidential proposal and, if this is approved by the relevant committee,
they co-author a full, confidential proposal for submission.
The key to ensuring milestone delivery is setting out a clearly defined roadmap detailing
the key junctures at the very start of the project, which all partners understand and buy
into. Success metrics are also important. To define the metrics for success, partners
need to:
• outline what success looks like at an early stage (‘leading indicators’)
• define ultimate quantitative and qualitative outcome/impact measures
• collect baseline data on both
• understand that the criteria will vary at different stages
All interviewees agreed that the most important aspect of running partnerships is regular
and open communication.
“We had face-to-face meetings every six months…. people committed in
advance and then they and their team would work really hard leading up to the
meeting to make sure that they had achieved their milestones.”
Professor Peter Donnelly, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics
(University of Oxford), International HapMap Project
Conclusions
• Participation in open innovation in the life sciences is growing
• Alignment of objectives is the single most important success factor
• Cultural and practical factors were more often cited as barriers than
intellectual property
Hunter, J (2010). Is the pharmaceutical industry open for innovation? Drug Discovery World Fall: 9–14.
National Audit Office (2011). NAO Guide: Initiating successful projects. National Audit Office publication.
Academy of Medical Sciences (2014). Open Innovation in the NHS: A forum workshop. Academy of Medical Sciences publication.