Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-149). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 142-149). Also available on the Internet.

La stratégie d'alliance est capitale pour la réussite et la survie des PME des secteurs de hautes technologies (PME-HT). Les partenariats R&D rentrent de plus en plus dans leur business models. Ainsi ce sont bien les PME de ces secteurs qui auraient besoin de développer une capacité d'alliance R&D, dans le sens où c'est une capacité organisationnelle qui permet à l'entreprise de gérer efficacement ses alliances R&D. Or ce concept de capacité d'alliance (CA) est majoritairement étudié dans un contexte de grandes firmes dans la mesure où elles disposent de managers spécialisés en alliances voire de départements alliances. Les PME quant à elles souffrent d'un manque structurel de ressources, notamment de ressources humaines et financières à allouer à l'activité de la gestion des alliances R&D. Pourtant l'innovation dans les secteurs de hautes technologies est portée principalement par les PME actives en gestion des alliances R&D. Notre objectif est d'explorer les pratiques de management des alliances R&D chez ces entreprises afin de répondre à la problématique suivante : Dans quelle mesure une PME de hautes technologies développe-t-elle une capacité d'alliance en R&D ? Nous comptons répondre à cette problématique en comparant les pratiques liées à la capacité d'alliance R&D des grandes firmes rapportées dans la littérature avec celles des PME de notre terrain de recherche. Egalement, nous mobilisons la théorie de la PME afin de lister les spécificités de ce type d'entreprises qui pourraient influencer leur capacité d'alliance. Nous avons étudié les pratiques managériales des PME du secteur des biotechnologies installées dans la région Languedoc-Roussillon. Nous avons sélectionné 20 entreprises parmi les 71 PME de biotechnologies languedocienne. Le critère de sélection a été la performance en matière d'alliances R&D et d'innovation technologique. Nous avons également étudié l'interaction de ces entreprises avec les acteurs du Système Sectoriel d'Innovation (SSI) du LR en ce qui concerne l'activité R&D. En somme, nous avons utilisé la méthode de l'observation non participante et de l'entretien semi-directif (un total de 39 entretiens).Nos résultats montrent que chez les PME-HT il existe deux types de capacité d'alliance en R&D : une CA individuelle et une CA organisationnelle. En l'occurrence dans les plus petites PME-HT seuls quelques individus ont développé cette capacité (dirigeant et responsable R&D. Quant aux autres PME plus âgées et de plus grandes tailles, la connaissance managériale liée à la CA est diffusée et stockée de manière collective dans la mémoire de l'entreprise. A la différence des grandes firmes, et dans les deux cas de figure, ces pratiques restent informelles et non institutionnalisées. Egalement, nous avons mis en évidence l'existence de la fonction informelle de chef de projet d'alliance R&D au sein de ces entreprises. Il s'agit d'un chercheur qui a développé un ensemble de compétences de chef de projet dans un contexte inter-organisationnel. Il s'agit principalement de connaissances en matière de DPI (Droit de Propriété Intellectuelle) et de montage de dossiers de financements publics.Enfin, certains aspects de la gestion des alliances R&D comme la prise de décision collégiale et le recours systématique au contrat comme mode de gouvernance des alliances constituent à nos yeux des facteurs de "dénaturation" de la PME de haute technologie par rapport à l'idéal-type de la PME. Dans un deuxième temps, nous discutons la nature même de la capacité d'alliance des PME de hautes technologies. Nos résultats permettent d'étudier en profondeur le lien entre le niveau individuel et organisationnel d'une capacité organisationnelle. / Alliance activity is a common practice in the high technology industries. Managing R&D alliances successfully is a major issue in such industries. Public policy makers in France announced that supporting high technology SMEs in managing their R&D alliances should become a standard practice among national and regional support agencies to business in the field of innovation activities. To contribute toward the goal of enhancing French high technology industries competitiveness we aim to study the R&D alliance management practices of SMEs within such industries. We are interested in the alliance capability of these firms as a strategic capability that allows the organizations to manage their alliances effectively. According to the state of the art, SMEs R&D alliance management practices are different from what you find at large companies. Presumably R&D alliance capability of high technology SMEs is expected to be different from large companies one. This assumption is based on the view that SMEs are characterized by a special organizational context which is different from large companies. Therefore our research problematic is to determine the extent to which, in high technology industries, SMEs develop a specific R&D alliance capability ? We plan to compare the state of the art concerning SMEs alliance capability with large companies' alliance management practices in high technology sectors. We choose to examine in particular the case of biotechnology SMEs because in this industry R&D alliances are very common practices and are critical to the survival of small firms. In order to comply with geographical and institutional embeddedness of innovation activities in this industry, we go one step further and study biotechnology SMEs from Languedoc Roussillon, a region in the south of France. A qualitative study was conducted in order to gather information about biotechnology SMEs practices concerning R&D alliances. We studied 20 companies ranked among the very successful in managing R&D alliances in the Languedoc Roussillon.Our results bring to light two different R&D alliance capability profiles within high technology SMEs : individual R&D alliance capability within smaller companies and organizational alliance capability within bigger SMEs. For the former companies, only some individuals develop managerial knowledge about R&D alliances, the persons in question are the CEO and/or an R&D top manager. They invested an enormous amount of time and resource in learning skills needed for the R&D alliance life cycle, such as project management tools, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), budgeting, etc. The first person to succeed in developing this individual R&D alliance capability is the CEO. As soon as the R&D activity grows, he tries to delegate his authority over the R&D manager or any other top scientist. For this purpose he starts to coach any scientist that showed interest in developing managerial skills. We call this totally informal coaching process “one-on-one learning process”. Within bigger high technology SMEs, there are practices related to a “collective learning process” aiming to spread managerial knowledge to all the R&D team members. It remains non-formal and non-institutionalized process, since there is no managerial knowledge codification. Actually, all the knowledge is stored only in the company oral memory.We showed many differences in managing R&D alliances between SMEs and large firms in the biotechnology industry. However high technology SMEs use formal contracts as the main governance control of the alliance relationship. They are very careful about IPR formal negotiation and management. In addition to that they use project management tools to plan the alliance implementation stage and even include this planning in the alliance contract. This make us reconsider the hypothesis according to which biotechnology SMEs fit to the SME ideal-type in terms of R&D alliance management practices.

Diss. Uppsala : Uppsala universitet, 2005.

This paper explores the extent to which corporations currently increase the voluntary disclosures in triple bottom line (TBL) reports. Although research already has provided substantial contributions as to why and how firms apply TBL reporting, there remains limited understanding of the motivations for and against making voluntary disclosures. Drawing from literature in environmental management and accounting as well as international auditing, this work focuses on guidance, boundarysetting and external assurance for TBL reports. An inductive case study approach is applied to investigate the credibility of TBL reporting by contrasting the competing predictions from legitimacy theory and voluntary disclosure theory on voluntary disclosures. A set of firm and industry specific factors are identified that are expected to determine a firm’s level and extent of reporting. The sample comprises nine US and EU red biotechnology corporations which aligned their TBL reporting to the GRI reporting standards in at least part of their TBL reports that were published between 2000 and 2009. An initial attempt is made to systematically investigate the credibility of TBL reporting to develop the model of voluntary disclosures. The empirical findings of this case study suggest that current guidance, boundary-setting and assurance for TBL reports are not sufficient to increase the credibility, comparability and reliability of reporting. Voluntary disclosure theory can serve to provide economic motivations, while legitimacy theory is helpful to provide a legitimating motivation. The findings support the notion that the economics-based factors better explain the secrecy strategy of providing mainly soft disclosures. The increase of disclosure levels maybe is considered sufficient to respond to public pressure. This work concludes by suggesting some directions of research in the areas of boundary-setting and assurance that have academic and practical implications.

近年來，生物技術的快速進步，逐漸被公認為是繼資訊產業之後最具發展潛力的產業。生技產業不同於傳統的製造業或電子產業，前者之進入障礙高、產品研發時程長及研發投入成本高。雖然生技產品開發成功後，投資報酬率高、產品的生命週期長，但由於其研發過程較長，具有相當高的不確定性，加上研發的失敗率高，致使生技產業成為投資風險極高的產業。 生技產業屬於知識密集的知識型產業，其主要價值來自於研發創新的無形資產，而難以傳統的評價方法及標的來估算。因此，探討如何評估生技公司的價值，是本研究之主要目的。 本研究範圍以「生技醫藥產業」為研究重點，生技產業的應用範圍包括醫藥開發、醫療器材、診斷試劑、農業生技、健康食品及生技服務業等領域。醫藥品的開發是生物技術最早應用的領域，目前全球生技產業中，也以生技醫藥領域的市場最大，是目前發展較為成熟且成功的領域。 但因生技醫藥公司之投資的評估考量與傳統評價模式有差異，生技醫藥公司之營運，通常需要先投入數年的研發，開發出具有市場潛力的產品或技術、並取得專利後，再透過授權或合作方式，向有意承接之單位或藥廠收取前期金(up-front payment)或研究經費(research fund)，以及收取各階段的里程金(milestone payment)，待產品成功上市後，生技醫藥公司再依銷售金額，分配到一定比率的授權金。上述的收入或獲利過程，往往長達4到7年，而其收入結構因合作模式的差別而有不同的組合變化。如果依一般公認的會計原則認列損益，將造成公司某一年有一大筆收入，但接下來幾年收入可能都掛零的現象。不但無法反映生技公司的真正營運狀況，亦可能造成投資人或主管單位的誤解，這正是生技公司價值無法依傳統評價模式進行評估的原因。 然而，究竟應該如何對一生技公司進行評價？本研究使用目前最佳的生技公司評價方法：風險調整淨現值法(rNPV)，並以一個案公司為題，探索生技醫藥產業的投資與評價過程。此法的評估結果，對生技公司的現有價值，即使仍在R&D的早期階段，仍能運用於生技公司投資、授權、取得等交易之需要。 關鍵字：生技產業、公司評價、風險調整淨現值、折現率 / Due to the rapid growth of the biotechnology industry, it is now considered the hottest industry after the information technology industry. Unlike the traditional production industry (the labor intensive) or the electronic industry, the biotechnology requires higher R&D costs, and usually the life span of its product lasts longer, which leads to a certain barrier in this particular field. Although the return of investment tends to be profitable if the product succeeds, yet the lengthy R&D process still makes the business highly risky. The innovation of intangible assets is the main value of biotechnology; in other words, this is a knowledge-intensive industry, and it is hard to measure the potential risks and returns through traditional evaluation models. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate how a biotechnology company is worth. This study will be mainly focus on “Bio-Pharmaceutical”, which includes New Drugs, Medical Devices and Instruments, Diagnostic Reagents and Platforms, Agricultural Biotech, Health Care Products, and Contract Services. A large number of biotechnology companies have viewed pharmaceuticals as their target market since 1997. Cleary, the Bio-Pharmaceutical is regarded as the mainstream of this industry. Owing to the different models of evaluation as mentioned earlier, biotechnology industry is different from the traditional ones. Biotech companies usually need to go through a long-range research process before developing a success product or technique, and they will usually authorize the selling rights to a partner in order to demand the up-front payment, research funds, and the follow up milestone payments. If the product hits the market, the companies will be paid with a certain ratio royalty. The process generally takes about 4 to 7 years, and the revenue varies depending on the partnership. It is possible for a company to have a huge gain in one particular year and then a deficit for the coming years if the financial condition is viewed from the general accepted accounting principles. Not only does it not reflect the real situation of a biotech company, but also misleads investors and regulatory authorities. This is why the value of a biotech company needs to be reconsidered in different ways, not the traditional ones. How, then, can we put a price tag on biotechnology? The best solution is to evaluate a biotechnology by estimating its risk-adjusted net present value (rNPV). To illustrate the rNPV method, the study has created a hypothetical scenario. Through the case study, we have arrived at a realistic value of a bio-company even at early R&D stages. Using the rNPV, researchers and potential investors can price the bio-company that they are considering selling, investing in or acquiring. Keywords：Biotechnology Industry、Evaluation、rNPV、Discount Rate

本研究之目的在探討台灣生技產業科技政策推動過程中所引發之爭議：臨床試驗(clinical trials)產業化，並以台灣地區自1960年代末期至2010年臨床試驗發展的制度變遷為研究標的，尤其是其中之生技產業政策推動及臨床試驗制度變遷，以說明該爭議如何發生及為何發生。 為發展台灣生物技術產業，行政院於2005年起推動生醫科技島(biomedical technology island)計畫，將原先為生物技術產業發展基礎設施的臨床試驗作為政策推動的主體，引發臨床試驗產業化的爭議。一般認為，此爭議是來自於促進產業發展與維護國民健康之間的利益衝突。 本研究經由制度變遷(institutional change)的觀點，探索台灣地區臨床試驗發展的歷程，認為上述臨床試驗產業化的爭議不只是產業推動與國民健康間的衝突，而是與台灣地區自1960年代末期至2010年生技產業政策推動與臨床試驗制度變遷有關。 台灣地區推動生物技術的科技政策始於1982年行政院修訂「科學技術發展方案(science technology development program」，明訂生物技術為八大重點科技之一，而後有1995年的行政院「加強生物技術產業推動方案(biotechnology industry promotion program」，2005年的行政院「生醫科技島計畫」等科技政策，本研究發現不同時期的科技政策賦予臨床試驗不同的意義，而不同時期臨床試驗的發展，其不同時期的行動者【產、官、學、研、醫】-- 包含政策決策者與政策參與者 -- 在臨床試驗制度變遷的過程中產生行動的差異；而在不同時期臨床試驗的發展階段，不同的官方行動者 -- 治理機構（governance agency）【衛生署、國科會、經濟部、科技顧問組等】，對於臨床試驗議題有不同程度的涉入。 台灣地區臨床試驗的發展在生技產業政策的型塑下，由原先之學術研究，階段性轉向協助產業發展。2005年行政院生醫科技島計畫，將臨床試驗作為政策推動的主體，擴大醫界參與生物技術產業發展，而醫界主要以醫療服務為主的制度邏輯（institutional logics）與科技政策形塑下產業發展的制度邏輯不一致（contradictions），因而引發臨床試驗產業化的爭議。 本研究發現對於科技政策的意涵為：在制訂與推動科技政策的過程中，唯有同時瞭解產業發展的歷史脈絡，才能避免產生非預期的結果（例如爭議）。本研究除探討生技產業政策推動過程中臨床試驗的制度變遷與變遷過程中所衍生的爭議，並將探討未來可能的研究方向。 / The study is intended to explore a controversy derived from the Taiwan biotechnology industry promotion by government policies, industrialization of clinical trials. The study targets the institutional change of the clinical trials and the policies for biotechnology industry promotion in Taiwan from the late 1960’s through 2010 to explain why and how the controversy was incurred. In order to develop the Taiwan biotechnology industry, the Executive Yuan implemented a Biomedical Technology Island program beginning 2005 to focus on clinical trials -- supposedly the infrastructure of biotechnology technology development -- but resulted in the controversy about the initiative of industrialization of clinical trials. It is reputedly because there is a conflict of interest between industry development promotion and how to maintain national healthcare. From the perspective of institutional change, the study explores the evolution of clinical trials in Taiwan, holding that the aforementioned controversy is not only a conflict of interest between industry development promotion and how to maintain national healthcare but also a consequence of the institutional change of the clinical trials and biotechnology promotion by government policies from the late 1960’s through 2010. The biotechnology industry promotion in Taiwan began with the Executive Yuan’s revision of its Science Technology Development program in 1982, designating the biotechnology as one of the eight strategic industries. The Executive Yuan followed through with a Biotechnology Industry Promotion program in 1995 and the Biomedical Technology Island program in 2005. The study finds that science and technology policies in different periods of time endowed clinical trials with different meanings while discrepant actions on clinical trials were taken by both policy makers and policy executors including the industry, government organizations, academia, research institutes and the medical community in different periods of time. The study also finds that different governance agencies, such as the Department of Health, Ministry of Economic Affairs, National Science Council as well as Science and Technology Advisory Group of the Executive Yuan, had different levels of involvement with the development of clinical trials in different periods of time. Molded by the government’s biotechnology policies, clinical trials in Taiwan have evolved from the nature of academic research to assistance to industry development. The Biomedical Technology Island program beginning 2005 focuses on clinical trials and strengthens the medical community’s participation in biotechnology development, but the institutional logics of the medical community is primarily about medical service and its contradictions with the institutional logics of biotechnology industry development have resulted in the controversy about industrialization of clinical trials. A science and technology policy implication identified by the study is that unexpected outcomes, such as the controversy dealt with herein, can only be avoided by understanding the historical context of an industry when the government develops and promotes the relevant policies for the industry. Moreover, the study will explore possible research directions in the future.

在知識經濟時代中，經由知識的創造、傳遞與應用獲得創新、異質性的知識和技術，對於產業競爭力的提升具有關鍵影響力。而生物科技產業擁有知識密集、產學互動關係密切、重視創新研發活動的特性，亦與本研究關注知識創新活動相符。加上生物科技的發展，不僅是全球大力投入的新興高科技產業，同時也被定位成國家競爭力的新指標。 所以本文即以生物科技產業為對象，從創新系統脈絡所提及的地理鄰近性和網絡關係切入，透過因素分析及系統分析（SEM）方法分別建構出在生技產業中創新系統行動者--廠商、大學和研究機構的知識傳遞路徑模型。透過所建構出的知識傳遞路徑模型，觀察在廠商和學研機構的知識傳遞活動中，同時考量地理鄰近性與網絡因素前提下，兩者對於知識傳遞路徑的影響程度及其所產生直接或間接的影響、與彼此間的因果關係所形成影響路徑的先後順序，以及地理鄰近性和網絡關係間是否可能存有互補或替代關係。更進一步針對產學研三者間的知識傳遞連結關係進行整體性的結構分析。 研究結果發現： 1.知識傳遞路徑確實存在先後因果關係引發對知識取得直接或間接之影響。在廠商模型中只有廠商聚集直接影響知識取得；而學研機構模型中則是由廠商鄰近與產業網絡直接影響知識獲取。並且因為因果關係的存在而形成知識傳遞路徑的先後順序。 2.在兩個知識傳遞路徑模型中，大學與研究機構都扮演主導創新研發活動的重要角色。 3.在廠商模型中，地理鄰近性與網絡存有互補關係，學研機構模型中則否。 4.地理空間的聚集對於廠商和學研機構的知識取得都具有舉足輕重的地位。 / During the era of knowledge-based economy, acquirement of innovative and heterogeneous knowledge by knowledge and technology creating , transmitting and using has key influence to improvement of industry's competitiveness. Characteristics of Biotechnology industry, which conform to this research pays close attention to the knowledge innovation activity are knowledge -intensive , close interactions between industry – university and emphasizing innovative and research development .It is not merely a new developing Hi-Tech industry of global great input, but also the new index of national competitiveness at the same time . This thesis regards biotechnology industry as the research subject promptly, based on viewpoints of geographical proximity and networks to understand the relations between innovative actors -- firm, university and research institution -- and to construct out the route model of transmission through factor analysis and systematic analysis(SEM).According to route model , while observing in the activities of knowledge transmitting, find out the actors’ influence degree and exert a direct or indirect influence in the route model , and try to figure out geographical proximity may be complementary or substitute to the networks. Go still one step further to concern the structure analysis which among the firms, universities and research institutes. The result of study is found: 1.The causality of knowledge transmission exists positively in the route to cause direct or indirect influences on knowledge acquiring and form the priority order .Only it influences knowledge to be obtained directly that the firms gather in firm's model; geographical proximity and firm's network influencing knowledge acquisition directly while learning to university and research institution's model . 2.In both route model, the university and research institution all act as leading actor in innovative activities. 3.In firm's model, the geographical proximity has complementary relations with the network, which has opposite relation in university and research institution's model. 4.The gathering in the geographical space has a very important position in the process of knowledge acquiring to all innovative actors.

「雙星產業」其中的一星--生技產業為我國經濟發展很重要的一環，但在投注了大量資源的今日，卻未見明顯成功企業標的。以台灣經營環境而言，企業多半規模不大，在研發起步較晚、創新能力不足的狀態之下，若要與大型廠商競爭是不智的，中小企業發展生技是否有較適宜的發展方向？即使如此，台灣仍有成功商品化且獲益的生技公司出現。因此，本研究藉由個案深入研究，探討台灣生技產業可能的關鍵成功因素，並分析個案公司成功之創新點，進而提出對廠商在發展上的建議。 個案公司--邰港科技由原本經營傳統水族產業而透過生物技術轉型成功，其創新商品螢光魚，正代表著生技產品從技術研發到商品化而後成功進入市場的典範，其成功因素不外乎掌握了現代人的寂寞商機，在研發創新上邰港投入大量研發經費(占營業額6%)，透過與學界合作技術移轉的方式讓研發及技術取得更有效率；在技術方面也掌握到了不孕性處理的先驅以及量產的技術；資源方面由於邰港在水族產業的深耕，能作為其創新價值的後盾。 本研究透過對邰港科技的深入研究後，對於欲轉型或跨入生技業者提出建議如下： 一、 找出與公司既有核心能力相關的發展方向。 二、 積極運用產學合作培植有發展潛力的技術。 三、 發展自有品牌、透過結盟方式加強行銷通道的建構。 四、 採取以小養大、以短養長的模式轉型或發展生技產業較適宜。

University of Macau / Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences