From Old Competence Destruction to New Competence Access: Evidence from the Comparison of Two Discontinuities in Anticancer Drug Discovery

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0616

References

  • Agarwal R., Helfat C. E. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):281–293LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ahuja G., Katila R. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management J. (2004) 25(8–9):887–907CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • American Cancer Society Cancer facts and figures 2000. (2000) . Retrieved March 10, 2008, http://ww2.cancer.org/downloads/STT/F&F00.pdfGoogle Scholar
  • American Cancer Society Cancer facts and figures 2004. (2004) . Retrieved March 25, 2009, http://ww2.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF_finalPWSecured.pdfGoogle Scholar
  • Amit R., Schoemaker P. J. H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management J. (1993) 14(1):33–46CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Barney J. B. Strategic factor markets—Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Sci. (1986) 32(10):1231–1241LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Barney J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Management (1991) 17(1):99–120CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bazell R.Her-2: The Making of Herceptin, a Revolutionary Treatment for Breast Cancer (1998) (Random House, New York) Google Scholar
  • Capdeville R., Buchdunger E., Zimmermann J., Matter A. Glivec (STI571, Imanitib), a rationally developed, targeted anticancer drug. Nature Rev. Drug Discovery (2002) 1:493–502CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cattani G. Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and technological performance: A study on the evolution of fiber optics, 1970–1995. Organ. Sci. (2005) 16(6):563–580LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Chabner B. A., Roberts T. G. Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer (2005) 5:65–72CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chemical and Engineering News List of top pharmaceuticals. (2005) 83(25, Special issue). http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8325/8325list.htmlGoogle Scholar
  • Christensen C. M.The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revoluationary Book that Will Change the Way You Do Business (1997) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
  • Colwell R. R. Fulfilling the promise of biotechnology. Biotechnology Adv. (2002) 20(3–4):215–228CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dierickx I., Cool K. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competition advantage. Management Sci. (1989) 35(12):1504–1511LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Drews J. Into the 21st century: Biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry in the next ten years. Biotechnology (1993) 11(3):S16–S20CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Eggers J. P., Kaplan S. Cognition and renewal: Comparing CEO and organizational effects on incumbent adaptation to technical change. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):461–477LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ethiraj S. K., Kale P., Krishnan M. S., Singh J. V. Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management J. (2005) 26(1):25–45CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Feldman M. The locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: Knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis. Indust. Innovation (2003) 10(3):311–329CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ferrera N., Hillan K. J., Gerber H.-P., Novotny W. Discovery and development of bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF antibody for treating cancer. Nature Rev. Drug Discovery (2004) 3:391–400CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gatignon H., Tushman M. L., Smith W., Anderson P. A structural approach to assessing innovation: Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Sci. (2002) 48(9):1103–1122LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gibbons A. Biotech pipeline: Bottleneck ahead. Science (1991) 254(5030):369–370CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Groysberg B., Lee L.-E., Nanda A. Can they take it with them? The portability of star knowledge workers' performance. Management Sci. (2008) 54(7):1213–1230LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hammond E., Johnson M. Credit Suisse leads bank sector higher. Financial Times (2009) July 23). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/o/ab0757d0-7773-11de-8c68-00144feaGoogle Scholar
  • Hannan M. T., Freeman J. Structural inertia and organizational change. Amer. Sociol. Rev. (1984) 49(2):149–164CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Helfat C. E., Lieberman M. B. The birth of capabilities: Market entry and the importance of pre-history. Indust. Corporate Change (2002) 11(4):725–760CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kaplan S., Murray F., Phillips N., Sewell G., Griffiths D. Entrepreneurship and the construction of value in biotechnology. Technology and Organization: Essays in Honour of Joan Woodward. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (2008) 29(Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK) 107–147Google Scholar
  • Lacetera N., Cockburn I. M., Henderson R., Baum J. A. C., McGahan A. M. Do firms change capabilities by hiring new people? A study of the adoption of science-based drug discovery. Business Strategy over the Industry Life Cycle. Advances in Strategic Management (2004) 21(Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK) 133–159CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Leader B., Baca Q. J., Golan D. E. Protein therapeutics: A summary and pharmacological classification. Nature Rev. Drug Discovery (2008) 7:21–39CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lieberman M. B., Montgomery D. B. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management J. (1988) 9(S1):41–58CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lu Z. J., Comanor W. S. Strategic pricing of new pharmaceuticals. Rev. Econom. Statistics (1998) 80(1):108–118CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Marx M. T. Essays on employee noncompete agreements. (2009) . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  • Mitchell W. Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value. Strategic Management J. (1991) 12(2):85–100CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Montgomery C. A., Wernerfelt B. Diversification, Ricardian rents, and Tobin's Q. RAND J. Econom. (1988) 19(4):623–632CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Morton L. T., Moore R. J.A Chronology of Medicine and Related Sciences (1997) (Scolar Press, Hants, UK) Google Scholar
  • Mowery D. C., Rosenberg N.Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America (1998) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Nature Nature milestones: Cancer. (2006) . Retrieved April 24, 2009, http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/timeline.htmlGoogle Scholar
  • Nature Nature milestones: DNA technologies. (2007) . Retrieved April 24, 2009, http://www.nature.com/milestones/miledna/timeline.htmlGoogle Scholar
  • Pearson A. E., Hurstak J. M. Johnson & Johnson in the 1990s. (1992) . HBS Case 9-393-001, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  • Penrose E.The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (1959) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
  • Puranam P., Singh H., Chaudhuri S. Integrating acquired capabilities: When structural integration is (un)necessary. Organ. Sci. (2009) 20(2):313–328LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Rang H. P., Rang H. P. The drug discovery process: general principles and some case histories. Drug Discovery and Development: Technology in Transition (2006) (Churchill Livingstone, Philadelphia) 43–56Google Scholar
  • Rothaermel F. T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management J. (2001) 22(6–7):687–699CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rumelt R. P., Teece D. J. Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal (1987) (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA) 137–158Google Scholar
  • Simonian H., Jack A. Novartis wins Chiron after sweetening its offer. Financial Times (2005) October 31). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9c4db34-49fb-11da-b8b1-0000779e2340.html#axzz1C5uVW1dyGoogle Scholar
  • Simonian H., Jack A. Roche completes Genentech deal. Financial Times (2009) March 27). http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/323d1670-1a6f-11de-9f91-0000779fd2ac.htmlGoogle Scholar
  • Sørensen J. B., Stuart T. E. Aging, obsolescence and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2000) 45(1):81–112CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Sosa M. L. Application-specific R&D capabilities and the advantage of incumbents: Evidence from the anticancer drug market. Management Sci. (2009a) 55(8):1409–1422LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Sosa M. L. High-risk radical innovation and the role of de novo firms in the dynamics of creative destruction: Evidence from gene therapy research. (2009b) Presentation, EGOS Conference 2009July 2(European Group for Organizational Studies, Barcelona) Google Scholar
  • Sutton J.Technology and Market Structure: Theory and Structure (1998) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15(6):285–305CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tilton J. E.International Diffusion of Technology: The Case of Semiconductors (1971) (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC) Google Scholar
  • Tripsas M. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management J. (1997) 18(S1):119–142CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tushman M., Anderson P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1986) 31(3):439–465CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tyle P., Ram B. P., Tyle P., Ram B. P. Monoclonal antibodies, immunoconjugates and liposomes as targeted therapeutic systems. Targeted Therapeutic Systems (1990) (Marcel Dekker, New York) 3–23Google Scholar
  • Vasella D., Slater R.Magic Cancer Bullet: How a Tiny Orange Pill Is Rewriting Medical History (2003) (HarperCollins, New York) Google Scholar
  • Walsh G.Biopharmaceuticals: Biochemistry and Biotechnology (2003) 2nd ed.(John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK) Google Scholar
  • Weber J. A big company that works: J&J's Ralph Larsen gives his units a lot of latitude—And they produce. Bus. Week (1992) 3264(4):124–127Google Scholar
  • Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. (1984) 5(2):171–180CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Williams C., Mitchell W. Focusing firm evolution: The impact of information infrastructure on market entry by U.S. telecommunications companies, 1984–1998. Management Sci. (2004) 50(11):1561–1575LinkGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.