Small- to medium-size biotech firms’ marketing efforts during the fuzzy front end of innovation

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand the nature of and the extent to which the type and level of marketing efforts help with the continuation of early-stage innovations. The locus between the phases of Research and Development and New Product Development is defined as the fuzzy front end of innovation, frequently called the “Valley of Death.” This early stage of innovation is typified by high risks and scarcity of project resources. The challenge for a firm as it develops an early-stage innovation is securing adequate financial, human, and physical project resources. For this study, early-stage innovations are represented by the US National Institutes of Health licenses accorded to small- to medium-size firms. The study develops firm profiles that describe combinations of marketing efforts that enable innovation continuation during the fuzzy front end of innovation. Profiles are evident in terms of marketing variables, firm attributes, and project resources. These profiles vary for type of firm and also by the stage in the firm’s life cycle. The contributions of this study are to (a) develop combinations of variables and profiles for describing and predicting early-stage innovation continuation, (b) provide pragmatic information to potential stakeholders about how to identify and foster early-stage innovations, and (c) help small- to medium-size firms understand how to position and promote themselves in order to obtain resources and advance early-stage innovations.

Keywords

Biotechnology fuzzy front end of innovation small- to medium-size enterprise technology transfer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ding

Eliashberg

. Structuring the new product development pipeline. Manage Sci 2002; 48: 343–363.

Bower

. Matching technology push to market pull: strategic choices and the academic spinout firm. Int J Entrepreneurship Innovation Manage 2002; 2(4–5): 339–353.

Internal Revenue Service (2010) Biotech industry overview, http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,id=175616,00.html (accessed on 23 June 2011).

Mergent (2011) North America biotechnology sector, http://webreports.mergent.com (accessed on 23 June 2011).

Malerba

Vonortas

. Innovation networks in industries, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2009.

Stremersch

Van Dyck

. Marketing of the life sciences: a new framework and research agenda for a nascent field. J Market 2009; 73: 4–30.

Cooper RG (1997) Fixing the fuzzy front end of the new product process. CMA Mag 71(8): 21–23.

Khurana A and Rosenthal SR (1997) Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product development. Sloan Manage Rev 38(2): 103–120.

Koen P, Ajamian G, Burkart R, et al. (2001) Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end.” Res Technol Manage 44(2): 46–55.

10.

Moenaert

De Meyer

Souder

. R&D/marketing communicating during the fuzzy front-end. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 1995; 42: 243–258.

11.

Reid

de Brentani

. The fuzzy front end of new product development for discontinuous innovations: a theoretical model. J Prod Innovation Manage 2004; 21: 170–184.

12.

Reinertsen

. Taking the fuzziness out of the fuzzy front end. Res Technol Manage 1999; 42: 25–31.

13.

Department of Energy. From invention to innovation: commercialization of new technology by independent and small business inventors, Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, 1991.

14.

Markham SK (2002) Moving technologies from lab to market. Res Technol Manage 45(6): 31–42.

15.

Merrifield

. Obsolescence of core competencies versus corporation renewal. Technol Manage 1995; 2: 73–83.

16.

Penrose

. The theory of the growth of the firm, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1959.

17.

Wernerfelt

. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Manage J 1984; 5: 171–180.

18.

Barney

. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 1991; 17: 99–120.

19.

Barney

. Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Acad Manage Acad Manage Rev 2001; 26: 41–57.

20.

Schoonmaker M, Carayannis E and Rau P. The role of marketing activities in the fuzzy front end of innovation: a study of the biotech industry (phase 1). J Technol Transfer. 2013; 38(2): 850–872.

21.

Small Business Administration (2011) What’s SBA’s definition of a small business concern? http://www.sba.gov/content/what-sbas-definition-small-business-concern (accessed 4 September 2011).

22.

Bendis R and Rohrbaugh M (2012) What is a biotech innovation ecosystem and how is it supposed to work? In: Presentation at Technology Transfer Society, Washington, D.C., 9 May 2012.

23.

Department of Energy. From invention to innovation: commercialization of new technology by independent and small business inventors, Washington, DC: US Department of Energy, 1991.

24.

Jaffe J and Miller R (2011). What investors look for, the differences between angel and VC deals, stages of funding, and the valley of death. In: Federal lab consortium conference—commercializing innovation: attracting investors and entrepreneurs, Washington, DC.

25.

Bendis R and Rohrbaugh M (2012) What is a biotech innovation ecosystem and how is it supposed to work? In: Presentation at technology transfer society, Rockville, MD, 9 May 2012.

26.

Jaffe J and Miller R (2011) What investors look for, the differences between angel and VC deals, stages of funding, and the valley of death. In: Federal lab consortium conference—commercializing innovation: attracting investors and entrepreneurs, Washington, DC.

27.

Bendis R and Rohrbaugh M (2012) What is a biotech innovation ecosystem and how is it supposed to work? In: Presentation at technology transfer society, Rockville, MD, 9 May 2012.

28.

29.

Merton

. The Matthew effect in science. Science 1968; 159: 56–63.

30.

Merton

. The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis 1988; 79: 606–623.

31.

Sine

Shane

Di Gregorio

. The halo effect and technology licensing: the influence of institutional prestige on the licensing of university inventions. Manage Sci 2003; 49: 478–496.

32.

Nohria

Information and search in the creation of new business ventures. In: Nohria

Eccles

(eds). Networks and organizations, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1992, pp. 240–257.

33.

Barley

Freeman

Hybels

Strategic alliances in commercial biotechnology. In: Nohria

Eccles

(eds). Networks and organizations, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1992, pp. 311–347.

34.

Powell

Koput

Smith-Doerr

. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus on innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Sci Quart 1996; 41: 116–145.

35.

Khurana A and Rosenthal SR (1997) Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product development. Sloan Manage Rev 38(2): 103–120.

36.

Reinertsen

. Taking the fuzziness out of the fuzzy front end. Res Technol Manage 1999; 42: 25–31.

37.

Smith

Herbein

Morris

. Front-end innovation at AlliedSignal and Alcoa. Res Technol Manage 1999; 42: 15–24.

38.

Nobelius

Trygg

. Stop chasing the front end process—management of the early phases in product development project. Int J Project Manage 2002; 20: 331–340.

39.

Markham

Ward

Aiman-Smith

. The valley of death as context for role theory in product innovation. J Prod Innovation Manage 2010; 27: 402–417.

40.

Westhead P and Wright M (1998) Novice, portfolio, and serial founders in rural and urban areas. Entrepreneurship Theory Pract 22(4): 63–100.

41.

Baker

Nelson

. Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Sci Quart 2005; 50: 329–366.