| 1. |
- Baraldi, Enrico, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
Start-ups and networks : Interactive perspectives and a research agenda
- 2019
-
In: Industrial Marketing Management. - : Elsevier. - 0019-8501 .- 1873-2062. ; 80, s. 58-67
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article introduces Industrial Marketing Management's special issue on start-ups and networks. To begin with, we stress the relevance of understanding the context wherein entrepreneurship unfolds – a context filled with social, technical and economic connections to which the start-up needs to relate. We also present and confront three network perspectives which bring different insights to the interplay between start-ups and networks: Social Network (SN) theory, the Industrial Marketing & Purchasing (IMP) view, and Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Next, we introduce the 12 papers of this special issue and place them on a continuum covering a start-up's process of network embedding and including the three periods of establishment, consolidation and stabilization. We conclude with a research agenda suggesting five avenues for further research: (1) tracing start-ups' process of network embedding, (2) mapping the connections between the different networks affecting a start-up, (3) grasping the negative effects of networks on start-ups, (4) making longitudinal case studies on start-ups and networks more comparable via common analytical tools, and (5) investigating how policy influences the complex interplay between start-ups and networks.
|
|
| 2. |
- B. Forsberg, Petter, 1984-
(author)
-
Collaboration in practice : A multiple case study on collaboration between small enterprises and university researchers
- 2018
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- University-industry collaborations (UICs) have been hailed as key for Sweden's innovativeness and economic growth. Similarly, building research and innovation policies for the promotion of collaboration between universities and industry have become a cornerstone for many other European countries.In academic literature there has been an emphasis on efficiency, facilitation, effects and values obtained in UICs. They have been widely studied, both in terms of the reasons why they are formed, their structure and the effects they create, but not much in terms of how they work on a daily basis. There is less attention in the literature to analyse or problematise how UIC work is carried out when a connection has already been formed or is repeatedly enacted. Additionally, there is also a lack of studies looking at small firms UICs. Through identifying a lack of perspective in the UIC literature this thesis builds on the recent developments in practice theory in addressing some of the gaps found. It thus analyses these collaborations from a perspective not present in the literature in pursuit of how UICs are carried out.Through four embedded case studies between small enterprises and university researchers the thesis questions some of the assumptions made in the UIC literature and policy documents. First of all, through the practice theory lens, the thesis shows how the creation of a node/linchpin, a boundary object or a broker, between university and industry is instrumental in enabling collaboration work to take place. Secondly, being able to work together successfully does not equal outcomes sought after by policy organisations. Nevertheless, a general conclusion is that there were valuable outcomes for both the companies and the researchers, confirming previous research on UICs. But, these benefits were often difficult to put into clear numbers or metrics and appeared only after a very long time.The thesis argues that policy (and associated organisations) should promote the connection between a research site/practices and a company site/practices rather than pushing for a joint practice. In such a way UICs can be valuable for both researchers and companies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Baraldi, Enrico, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
A network perspective on the reshoring process : The relevance of the home- and the host-country contexts
- 2018
-
In: Industrial Marketing Management. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 0019-8501 .- 1873-2062. ; 70, s. 156-166
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- While research on reshoring generally focuses on the host-country to explain why a company brings its previously offshored activities back home, this paper stresses the relevance also of the home-country context. Specifically, relying on the IMP (Industrial Marketing & Purchasing) perspective we show how offshoring and reshoring processes and decisions are both enabled and constrained by the micro-interactions and inter-dependencies in the industrial networks stretching over the home-country and the host-country. This work relies on a longitudinal case study about an Italian manufacturing firm to develop a model indicating how offshoring/reshoring is a long-term process which unfolds depending both on the focal firm's strategy and on its interplay with the embedding network. Next to this interactive process perspective, we contribute to the literature on reshoring and the global factory also the concept of "selective reshoring", whereby companies bring back a very specific sub-set of activities, which were previously fine-sliced and offshored, and re-embed these activities in their local home context. The more flexible and selective nature of this relocation of activities between different supply markets depends both on the firm's strategy and on the structure, overlap and evolution of the network elements located in the home- and host-country contexts.
|
|
| 4. |
- Baraldi, Enrico, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
Antibiotic Pipeline Coordinators
- 2018
-
In: Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. - : SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC. - 1073-1105 .- 1748-720X. ; 46, s. 25-31
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The World Health Organization (WHO) has published a global priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to guide research and development (R&D) of new antibiotics. Every pathogen on this list requires R&D activity, but some are more attractive for private sector investments, as evidenced by the current antibacterial pipeline. A pipeline coordinator is a governmental/non-profit organization that closely tracks the antibacterial pipeline and actively supports R&D across all priority pathogens employing new financing tools.
|
|
| 5. |
- Baraldi, Enrico, Professor, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
Applying the resource interaction approach to policy analysis - Insights from the antibiotic resistance challenge
- 2022
-
In: Industrial Marketing Management. - : Elsevier. - 0019-8501 .- 1873-2062. ; 106, s. 376-391
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This paper explores how the Resource Interaction Approach (RIA), namely the 4Rs model and the three settings of developing-producing-using, can be applied to complex policy analyses. We use the global sustainability challenge of antibiotic resistance as an example to define an agenda about how these analytical tools can frame and analyze such problems systematically. We find that these tools offer benefits to policymakers, including flexibility in framing problems, by selecting the focal resources and values to be prioritized, and the ability to visualize the direct and indirect interdependencies that enable or hinder value creation. Moreover, the RIA can point at the resource interfaces that need to change through specific policy interventions, as well as the potential network-level barriers to such changes. We also find that the RIA needs to be complemented by network-level analyses of deal structures and monetary flows in order to better capture the legal and financial dimensions of policy problems and solutions.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Baraldi, Enrico, Professor, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
Connecting IMP and entrepreneurship research : Directions for future research
- 2020
-
In: Industrial Marketing Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0019-8501 .- 1873-2062. ; 91, s. 495-509
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- As a research field, entrepreneurship emerged from an increasing interest in fostering new business ventures. Over the past decade, interest in entrepreneurial phenomena also triggered several studies in the IMP research stream. We examine connections between these two research streams in terms of the phenomena in focus, key concepts, and approaches to identify research areas fruitful for advancing our understanding of entrepreneurial phenomena. In pursuit of this aim, we analyzed 48 IMP-based entrepreneurship studies and the abstracts of the 227 most cited papers in eight main entrepreneurship journals; among the latter, we conducted an in-depth analysis of 30 articles, in which we found connections with IMP studies. Based on our analysis, we identify four directions for future research, where confronting and bridging the key concepts has the potential to contribute to conceptualizing entrepreneurial phenomena and related theory development. The four areas are: variety in the context of new ventures; multiplicity of networks embedding new ventures; connecting the new venture to its context; and the new venture's learning and management.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Baraldi, Enrico, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
Economic incentives for the development of new antibiotics : Report commissioned by the Public Health Agency of Sweden
- 2019
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This report responds to a request by the Public Health Agency of Sweden (Folkhälsomyndigheten) concerning which incentives for antibiotics research and development (R&D) Sweden should take into consideration for potential public investments. Based on discussions and interviews with experts, feedback from stakeholders (i.e. potential recipients of Swedish incentives), company case studies and computer-based Monte Carlo simulations, this report provides a set of recommendations about the economic incentives that can be relevant for Sweden.The incentives identified for Sweden’s portfolio meet the following criteria: improving Sweden’s visibility in the antibiotics field, reinforcing Sweden’s national R&D infrastructure in this area, leveraging Sweden’s strengths and traditions, limiting the public expenditure per incentive, permitting rapid implementation and effects, providing highly needed support to the antibiotic pipeline in unique ways, and granting Sweden a key contribution and thus influence on the design and direction of each incentive.Based on these criteria, a Market Entry Reward (MER) was not considered a viable alternative for Sweden if implemented by Sweden alone, especially because of its demanding financial engagement (close to 1 B USD), which is necessary for this incentive to produce relevant effects on the antibiotics R&D pipeline. However, if Sweden were to decide to pilot an MER, it should focus on a fully delinked MER, which entirely substitutes market sales with lump sums paid on a yearly basis. An MER should moreover be financed primarily from the healthcare budget to avoid crowding out other incentives. A fully delinked MER would allow testing several features of this incentive model, such as the evaluation procedures to set the overall amount of the MER, the definition of the unit prizes to be paid by local healthcare facilities to the central government, and periodic reviews to reassess the amount of yearly lump-sum payments according to the confirmed therapeutic efficacy of the antibiotic.If Sweden were to collaborate with other countries, such as the G20 group or the 28 EU members, a reasonable amount for its share is 6 or 23 M USD, respectively, for a partially delinked MER and 9 or 34 M USD, respectively, for a fully delinked MER. There are, however, ways to combine push and pull incentives, which are quicker and more efficient than an MER, namely combinations of grants with milestone prizes, which are rewards paid to developers upon the successful completion of key R&D steps (e.g. Phase 1 clinical studies). In addition to producing better effects for the money spent, a combination of milestone prizes and grants also prevents large MERs from crowding out push investments as well as recipients such as small- and medium-sized firms (SMEs), who usually cannot wait for a reward that is delayed until the final approval of an antibiotic.The recommended portfolio of incentives for Sweden includes three incentives: grants, milestone prizes and Pipeline Coordinators, to be used in combination with each other as a way to cover the antibiotics R&D pipeline and achieve important synergies. The following features should be considered when implementing and funding the three selected incentives:1) Grants should be dedicated to early R&D projects (no later than Phase 2) and to reinforcing the national R&D infrastructure, with a longer-term perspective than the current 3-year timeframe. In this regard, Sweden should maintain and possibly increase its current yearly investments in antibiotics R&D grants of approximately 7 M USD/year (60 M SEK) over several years. These investments will pay off in the long run, both in terms of molecules that will enter the future R&D pipeline; and as a stock of competencies spread over an infrastructure of specialised R&D centres that can be leveragedfor future antibiotics research. These competences must be built up immediately and the seeds for future R&D projects need to be planted as soon as possible.2) Two types of milestone prizes should be in focus for Sweden: first, a prize awarding a sum between 10 and 20 M USD at the end of Clinical Phase 1 to highly innovative molecules addressing specific pathogens and, second, a prize for projects successfully completing preclinical steps. Establishing a prize at the end of Clinical Phase 1 is a much needed and unique initiative, with significant effects on the early R&D pipeline, granting also strong international visibility to Sweden. Sweden could also take major responsibility for such a milestone prize by covering a relatively large share. The other recommended milestone prize, awarded at the end of the preclinical steps, would help refill the clinical pipeline and would therefore have more of a long-term effect.3) Pipeline Coordinators, that is, organizations that take an active role in selecting and supporting a portfolio of antibiotics R&D projects in various ways, are the last recommended incentive. Selecting among currently existing Pipeline Coordinators rather than creating a new one, Sweden should fund two types of such organizations: R&D Collaborations, which create collaboration platforms to perform early development activities for the antibiotic projects they support, and Non-Profit Developers, who conduct their own antibiotic projects with the aim of bringing antibiotics to market but without pursuing profit goals. The first type of Pipeline Coordinator, R&D Collaborations, is relevant for a Swedish public investment because they are potentially the most efficient incentive in making R&D projects profitable. However, to fully exploit this potential, R&D Collaborations must be refined to become more flexible, reduce bureaucratic burden and avoid conflicts between participants.Non-Profit Developers provide the most extensive support to selected products by intervening across the entire antibiotic pipeline to ensure products reach the market. Moreover, this model strongly promotes both global availability and responsible use (stewardship). Therefore, Sweden may fund Non-Profit Developers through its international aid budget and in this way make important contributions to global health.Both types of Pipeline Coordinators also offer the advantage that they can help connect Swedish antibiotics R&D centres to international platforms, which reinforce the effects of infrastructure-related grants. Moreover, all forms of Pipeline Coordinators are incentive models that can be used as tools to manage the other two incentives (grants and milestone prizes). In this capacity, they can, for instance, evaluate grant applications and the antibiotic projects eligible for milestone prizes, which require a deep insight into the details of a drug development project.A fourth model, regulatory simplifications, which radically cut costs and times for Clinical Phase 3, can also be relevant for Sweden due to its contained costs, rapid implementation and effects and connection with Sweden’s expertise. However, this incentive requires further analysis to fully grasp its implications for regulators and patient safety before being recommended for implementation.The three incentives recommended by this report – grants, milestone prizes and Pipeline Coordinators – should be used in combination to exploit the synergies between them and their ability to push and pull molecules in different phases of the R&D pipeline. For instance, when grants and milestones are used together, the public investment per approved new antibiotic is lower than the combined spending if the two incentives were used in isolation. If it is not possible to introduce and use the three incentives simultaneously, the following priorities should be applied: first of all, grants need to be kept at current levels and possibly increased to fund both single antibiotic projects and competence development in the R&D infrastructure, while starting to invest in a Non-Profit Developer and a milestone prize at the end of Phase 1, followed by the development and funding of R&D Collaborations and, finally, a preclinical milestone prize.
|
|
