東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

The Impacts of Alternative Alliance ...

Moncrief, Kevin Warren.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The Impacts of Alternative Alliance Partner Policies of Big Pharmaceutical Firms and Their Smaller Biotechnology Partner Firms: A System Dynamics Approach.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	The Impacts of Alternative Alliance Partner Policies of Big Pharmaceutical Firms and Their Smaller Biotechnology Partner Firms: A System Dynamics Approach./
Author:	Moncrief, Kevin Warren.
Description:	472 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 72-01, Section: A, page: 2730.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International72-01A.
Subject:	Business Administration, Management. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3436592
ISBN:	9781124353708

The Impacts of Alternative Alliance Partner Policies of Big Pharmaceutical Firms and Their Smaller Biotechnology Partner Firms: A System Dynamics Approach.
Moncrief, Kevin Warren.

The Impacts of Alternative Alliance Partner Policies of Big Pharmaceutical Firms and Their Smaller Biotechnology Partner Firms: A System Dynamics Approach. - 472 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 72-01, Section: A, page: 2730.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Claremont Graduate University, 2010.

Alliances between big pharmaceutical firms (BPF) and smaller biotechnology firms (BIOF) are increasing. The 20 largest BPF firms formed nearly 1,500 alliances with BIOFs between 1977 and 2002 (Lam 2004). Over half of the current 20 best-selling BPF prescription drugs were co-developed, co-marketed, or in-license with BIOF firms, accounting for 40 percent of BPF revenues (Lam 2004). However, sixty percent of drug discovery alliances fail to achieve expected results---half for non-technical reasons (Laroia and Krishnan 2005). Nonetheless, alliances are becoming more important for BPF firms because alliances help them to meet or exceed competitive growth rate projections.

ISBN: 9781124353708Subjects--Topical Terms:

626628
Business Administration, Management.

The Impacts of Alternative Alliance Partner Policies of Big Pharmaceutical Firms and Their Smaller Biotechnology Partner Firms: A System Dynamics Approach.
LDR:03118nam a2200313 4500 001 1966016
005 20141106123004.5
008 150210s2010 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781124353708
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3436592
035 $a AAI3436592
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Moncrief, Kevin Warren. $3 2102786
245 1 4 $a The Impacts of Alternative Alliance Partner Policies of Big Pharmaceutical Firms and Their Smaller Biotechnology Partner Firms: A System Dynamics Approach.
300 $a 472 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 72-01, Section: A, page: 2730.
500 $a Adviser: Paul Gray.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Claremont Graduate University, 2010.
520 $a Alliances between big pharmaceutical firms (BPF) and smaller biotechnology firms (BIOF) are increasing. The 20 largest BPF firms formed nearly 1,500 alliances with BIOFs between 1977 and 2002 (Lam 2004). Over half of the current 20 best-selling BPF prescription drugs were co-developed, co-marketed, or in-license with BIOF firms, accounting for 40 percent of BPF revenues (Lam 2004). However, sixty percent of drug discovery alliances fail to achieve expected results---half for non-technical reasons (Laroia and Krishnan 2005). Nonetheless, alliances are becoming more important for BPF firms because alliances help them to meet or exceed competitive growth rate projections.
520 $a This dissertation explores the effect of BPF firm management policies on creating and fostering alliances with partner firms. The study had main objectives. (1) Analyze the Patterns and Trends in BPF/BIOF Alliances. (2) Develop a Framework for Modeling the Alliances. (3) Test the Validity of the System Dynamics Model.
520 $a Study #1 was conducted based on 18 years of historical data on alliances for 3 large BPF firms: Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly, ranked 1st, 2nd, and 10th in reported 2009 revenues. Analysis of alliance management data collected in Study #1 for the period 1993 through 2008 showed great similarity among the large BPF firms in their alliance selection practices. Of the 16 alliance deal attributes defining the alliances, the BIOF firm characteristics and BPF firm characteristics, 13 were similar. Study #1 showed that dynamic relationships exist among revenue growth, exploration alliances, exploitation alliance, R&D investments, and licensing royalties.
520 $a In Study #2, a framework for studying alliances was developed based on the results of Study #1. The framework was used to create the System Dynamics model. Furthermore, it is shown that the alliance agreements depend on the strength of the ties between the BPF and BIOF firms. The sensitivity analyses tested nine assertions (from Study #1) that involve revenue, exploration, exploitation, and strength of ties. The results validate the model.
590 $a School code: 0047.
650 4 $a Business Administration, Management. $3 626628
650 4 $a Health Sciences, Pharmacy. $3 1017737
690 $a 0454
690 $a 0572
710 2 $a The Claremont Graduate University. $3 1017403
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 72-01A.
790 $a 0047
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2010
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3436592