· Do you think the outcomes of "Rebuilding the R&D Engine in Big Pharma. Harvard Business Review" published in 2008 are still valid? please justify your answer

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The task presents an essay question: 
"Do you think the outcomes of \"Rebuilding the R&D Engine in Big Pharma. Harvard Business Review\" published in 2008 are still valid? please justify your answer". Since there are no multiple-choice options to evaluate, I will instead provide a detailed, student-focused analysis that helps justify whether the 2008 article’s conclusions remain relevant today, and address potential counterpoints the student’s answer touches on.

First, consider the core ideas likely discussed in the 2008 piece: (a) persistent challenges in R&D productivity in big pharma, (b) the need for organizational change to improve collaboration and drive innovation, (c) the value of open innovation, academia–industry partnerships, and internal culture shifts, and (d) the awareness that external pressures (regulatory, pricing, and patient-centricity) shape R&D priorities.

Now evaluate the student’s answer sentence by sentence:
- The student states that much of the article is still relevant, noting ongoing issues of decreasing R&D productivity, organizational change, and a culture of collaboration and innovation. This aligns with widely observed enduring themes in pharma R&D: increasing costs, long development timelines, and the necessity of cross-functional, collaborative approaches. The reasoning here is sound because it connects the article’s claims to persistent structural and strategic challenges that have continued beyond 2008.
- The student notes that drug development remains dangerous, expensive, and time-consuming for Big Pharma. This is a factual reaffirmation of the fundamental problem the article likely emphasized, which remains valid as a baseline reality in the industry. It reinforces why the article’s suggested approaches could still be valuable.
- The student mentions specific strategies from the article, such as collaborations with academia or other firms to streamline and share capabilities and open innovation. If these strategies were recommended in 2008, the student’s assertion that they were adopted by many companies is plausible, given the broad industry shift toward alliance management, consortium models, and open innovation ecosystems over the past decade and a half. To strengthen this point, one could cite concrete post-2008 examples (e.g., increased university partnerships, external R&D networks, and public–private partnerships) to demonstrate empirical uptake.
- The student asserts that emerging technologies like AI, big data, and precision medicine began transforming R&D in ways not fully anticipated in 2008. This is a strong, well-supported observation. While AI and data analytics were developing then, their current scale and impact in target identification, patient stratification, and translational science far surpass what was conceivable in 2008. This shows that while the article’s core concerns remain valid, the tools and capabilities to address them have evolved, warranting updated strategies and metrics.
- The student notes regulatory factors and a greater emphasis on patient-centricity and value-based care as drivers of change. This is accurate and aligns with the broader industry trend that regulatory expectations and payer perspectives increasingly shape R&D priorities, trial design, and value demonstration. It supports the idea that the article’s strategic recommendations must adapt to a more patient- and value-focused environment.

Synthesis of the argument:
- The student’s conclusion—that the fundamental challenges and recommendations still stand, but the ways to rebuild the R&D engine have evolved due to scientific and technological advances—captures a balanced perspective. It acknowledges that while the problem frame is durable (inefficiencies, need for culture change, reliance on collaboration), the solutions must incorporate modern capabilities (AI, big data, precision medicine) and new system pressures (regulatory shifts, value-based care).

Potential improvements to strengthen the justification:
- Provide concrete, up-to-date examples of how companies have implemented the article’s recommendations (e.g., specific partnerships, open-innovation programs, or internal reforms) and quantify outcomes where possible (time to clinic reduction, cost savings, pipeline productivity).
- Discuss potential limitations or counterarguments: for instance, that open innovation can introduce IP governance challenges, collaboration fatigue, or misalignment of incentives; or that AI/precision medicine require substantial data quality, cybersecurity, and regulatory clarity.
- Expand on how regulatory and payer expectations have altered success metrics (e.g., patient outcomes, real-world evidence, and value-based pricing) and how R&D governance might need to adapt (portfolio prioritization, adaptive trial designs, modular development).

In summary, the student’s justification is coherent and largely correct: the 2008 article remains relevant in framing persistent R&D challenges in Big Pharma, and its recommended strategies remain pertinent but must be adapted to contemporary technological capabilities and regulatory/payer landscapes. The answer would be strengthened by citing concrete post-2008 examples, addressing potential drawbacks of the proposed approaches, and explicitly linking the historical concepts to current metrics and governance practices.

GBSH0023_25-26 Test yourself - week one

· Do you think the outcomes of "Rebuilding the R&D Engine in Big Pharma. Harvard Business Review" published in 2008 are still valid? please justify your answer

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler