companies have a lot of information to meet the needs of society, but a limited
number of companies have a management department that links collaborative
relationships such as conducting necessary basic research based on that information.
In conclusion, a third institution should be responsible for project management that
connects academia and companies. In the future, we should also consider and discuss
how project management should be performed in the area of TR.
As argued in this chapter, a shortage of preparation resources is present, such as
platforms to promote TR in life sciences in Japan. More importantly, however, is the
lack of a leading development strategy for the entire Japanese industry, and how the
industry–government–academia collaboration will be positioned in this process
remains unclear. Particularly in the field of pharmaceutical manufacturing, companies face intense global competition. Creating innovative products from the development and production of only one company is almost impossible. For the
development of molecularly targeted drugs in cancer therapeutics, information at
the gene level is necessary. Regarding genetic information, Merck has released such
information, called the “Merck Gene Index”, which is generally free to universities
and companies for pharmaceutical development. Thus, the term “open innovation”
has been used for a long time in the computer program and Internet industries, but
“open innovation” is no longer an essential concept in the life science industry. The
Merck case just described is an example of “open innovation” (Chesbrough &
Appleyard, 2007). Gary also states that Merck’s strategy is clear: “Merck expected
to capture value in its downstream drug development activities and wanted to create
a more open source of inputs in the upstream process of identifying potential areas to
investigate.”(Pisano, 2006).The idea of open innovation is important when promoting innovative TR. For different types of industries to be integrated into this open
innovation platform, the strategic position of both companies and universities needs
to be clarified. Even for the case introduced in this chapter, I think it is necessary to
develop a strategy from the viewpoint of business continuity and examine what
needs to be done. Based on that conclusion, properly determining what technologies
companies require and to move compounds into the product pipeline may be
possible. In the future, building a data bank and matching system from the viewpoint
of open innovation on a private platform that promotes a pipeline that connects
research institutions such as universities and product development by companies
will be necessary. However, both the university side and the company side will need
to carefully engage in strategic thinking about introducing the concept of project
management and how to position themselves effectively.
References
Asano, S., et al. (2018). Intellectual property in the field of regenerative medicine in Japan. Clinical
Therapeutics, 40(11), 1823–1826.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California
Management Review, 50(1), 57. FALL.
Realities and Challenges of Bridging Research in Japan
151
number of companies have a management department that links collaborative
relationships such as conducting necessary basic research based on that information.
In conclusion, a third institution should be responsible for project management that
connects academia and companies. In the future, we should also consider and discuss
how project management should be performed in the area of TR.
As argued in this chapter, a shortage of preparation resources is present, such as
platforms to promote TR in life sciences in Japan. More importantly, however, is the
lack of a leading development strategy for the entire Japanese industry, and how the
industry–government–academia collaboration will be positioned in this process
remains unclear. Particularly in the field of pharmaceutical manufacturing, companies face intense global competition. Creating innovative products from the development and production of only one company is almost impossible. For the
development of molecularly targeted drugs in cancer therapeutics, information at
the gene level is necessary. Regarding genetic information, Merck has released such
information, called the “Merck Gene Index”, which is generally free to universities
and companies for pharmaceutical development. Thus, the term “open innovation”
has been used for a long time in the computer program and Internet industries, but
“open innovation” is no longer an essential concept in the life science industry. The
Merck case just described is an example of “open innovation” (Chesbrough &
Appleyard, 2007). Gary also states that Merck’s strategy is clear: “Merck expected
to capture value in its downstream drug development activities and wanted to create
a more open source of inputs in the upstream process of identifying potential areas to
investigate.”(Pisano, 2006).The idea of open innovation is important when promoting innovative TR. For different types of industries to be integrated into this open
innovation platform, the strategic position of both companies and universities needs
to be clarified. Even for the case introduced in this chapter, I think it is necessary to
develop a strategy from the viewpoint of business continuity and examine what
needs to be done. Based on that conclusion, properly determining what technologies
companies require and to move compounds into the product pipeline may be
possible. In the future, building a data bank and matching system from the viewpoint
of open innovation on a private platform that promotes a pipeline that connects
research institutions such as universities and product development by companies
will be necessary. However, both the university side and the company side will need
to carefully engage in strategic thinking about introducing the concept of project
management and how to position themselves effectively.
References
Asano, S., et al. (2018). Intellectual property in the field of regenerative medicine in Japan. Clinical
Therapeutics, 40(11), 1823–1826.
Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California
Management Review, 50(1), 57. FALL.
Realities and Challenges of Bridging Research in Japan
151