Perception des risques liés aux collaborations et partenariats dans les PME de biotechnologie :

premiers résultats de l’enquête menée au Québec

The perception of risks related to the participation in alliances and partnerships in Biotechs SMEs:

preliminary results of the Quebec survey

Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin, PhDNeil Hamzaoui

Atelier CIRANO – Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal19 septembre 2008

1

The Biotechnology Industry• Knowledge-based industry

– Based on commercialization of intellectual knowledge (Oliver, 1994)

– Costly products related to high R&D expenditure• Highly competitive environment

– Frequent technological changes– 532 firms in Canada in 2005 (83% are SMEs)

• Uncertain environment– Intellectual property and secret issues on critical technologies

(North, 1990 ; Bessy et Brousseau, 1997)– Stringent regulation : most products require clearance from

legal authorities (Health Canada or the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) in the USA)

– Results are impossible to predict, product development cycle takes 7 years on average

2

Literature review

Introduction• The biotechnology industry features a seemingly

inexhaustible incidence of inter-organizational relationships (firms, universities, research centers, hospitals etc.)

• Small and medium size biotech firms (SMEBs) collaborate with universities and established firms (Stuartet al., 2007)

• Some SMEBs do not collaborate (source : Enquête de Statistique Canada de 2003 and 2005, showing a ratio of partnerships per firm < 1)

• Oliver (2002) shows that for young SMEBs, the inability to form partnerships is assiociated with organizational death

Why do not SMEBs collaborate ? 3

SMEBs’ collaborations• Upstream : build or maintain close links with universities (Audrestch et

Stephan, 1996 ; Zucker et al. 1998) – Scientists transfer their knowledge and notoriety into companies (Arora et

Gambardella, 1990 ; Liebeskind et al. 1996). – A broad proportion of the drugs on the market today with biotechnological

origins have emanated from license agreements for scientific discoveries made in universities (Edwards et al., 2003).

– The diversity and quality of the academic connections of a firm positively influences the chances of forming revenue-generating collaborations with downstream partners (Stuart et al., 2007).

• Downstream : mostly transfer the output to established life science firms – License agreements and commercialization/distribution collaborations for final

products (Pisano, 1991 ; Robinson et Stuart, 2007).

4

Literature review

SMEBs’ collaborations

• SMEBs act as intermediaries in tripartite vertical alliance chains. (Stuart et al., 2007)Access to resources (knowledge, assets, capital,

distribution networks etc.) (Pisano, 1991 ; Maheux, 2005)

5

Literature review

SMEBs

Why don’t they collaborate? 1) Several factors, independent from managers’ will,

can keep a firm from forming partnerships– It may be hard to find a partner that meets the firm’s

needs / goals– Other organizations can refuse to collaborate

Reasons may be : • Biotechnology product line or portfolio limited in scope,• Further product development or proof of concept required, • Insufficient number of patents,• No star scientist on the scientific team (Audrestch et Stephan,

1996 ; Zucker et Darby, 1996 ; Niosi, 2003). • Etc.

6

Literature review

Why don’t they collaborate?

2) The decision to collaborate is perceived as risky by managers (March et Shapira, 1987 ; Nooteboom et al., 1997 ; Williamson, 1981)

• Example :– The firms key-knowledge is transferred intentionally and

unconsciously to partner organizations, who can take advantage of it opportunistically (Kale et al., 2000 ; Simonin, 1999) Knowledge leakage risk

– Ambiguous clauses in contracts can lead to contentious situations, or make managers feel threatened about their firm’s interests (Brousseau, 2000 ; Hart et Moore, 1988) Conflict risk

7

Literature review

Risks and CollaborationTwo main risk types are related to partnerships (Das et Teng,

1996) 1) Performance risk (achievement of strategic objectives)

– Technology related, market related, policy related or political factors can threaten and compromise the achievement of strategic objectives (Chakravarty, 1985 ; St-Pierre, 1999).

– Every organization has to tackle with that type of risk

2) Relational risk– Uncertainty related to the latent ambiguity about the behavior

and intentions of partners (Nooteboom et al., 1997). – This uncertainty generates risks that are related to the very

existence of a relationship between two or more organizations.

8

Literature review

Objective of this research

Why do some SMEBs decide not / refuse to collaborate?

9

Methodology

• Exploratory research– Semi-directed interviews with 10 top-level

managers of SMEBs in Quebec (Canada)– Formulation of propositions that will help us to

better understand the antecedents of the decisions not to collaborate

• A survey among biotechnology companies in Quebec (with BioQuebec annual survey )

10

Results of the exploratory research

11

Proposition 11-a : SMEB managers perceive partnerships as risky situations.1-b : SMEB managers identify different types of risks related to

partnerships.

Results of the exploratory research

12

Proposition 2Some risks are perceived as obstacle to the

decision to collaborate.

Proposition 3The way in which the risks are perceived depends on situational variables relating to the individual and to the entity to which he or she belongs.

The survey on SMEBs’ partnerships

Variables (1/2)– Measure of risk perception

• 1 construct corresponding to performance risk• 11 constructs, each corresponding to a relational risk

dimension

– Control the impact of each type of risk on decision-making concerning collaborations

13

The survey on SMEBs’ partnershipsVariables (2/2)

• Characteristics of the firm– Take the company’s context into account.

• Collaboration strategies and decisions depend on the development stage of a company through its life cycle (Oliver, 2001)

– Understand the situation of the manager.

• Control variables– Results from Statistics Canada’s survey on Biotechnology Use in

Canada suggest parameters that influence the formation of partnerships (Lonmo et McNiven, 2007)

• Biotechnology sector; size of the company ; spin-off etc.

14

A survey among SMEBs in Quebec• We began with Québec, Canada.

• In 2005, 181 biotech firms in Québec (Lonmo et McNiven, 2007).

• Assembling a list of firms from repertories of industrial associations such as BioteCanada and BioQuébec.

• We collaborate with BioQuébec, a biotechnology and life science industry association representing more than 175 member companies and R&D centers in Quebec.

44 respondents

15

16

1) Questions related to general information

2) Questions related to partnerships

3) Questions related to risks

The survey

The survey• Types of risks:

– Risk of non-achievement of the goals– Risk of asymmetry in negotiations– Risk of asymmetry in operations– Risk of inhibition– Risk of irreversibility– Risk of conflict– Risk of leak of knowledge– Risk of incompatibility– Risk of opportunistic behaviour– Risk of absorption

• For ach type of risk we measured with a 7 point scale [1=Very low, 7=Very high]– The level of risk perceived (is a risk associated to partnerships?) – The importance of a risk as an obstacle to the decision to collaborate (when

a risk is perceived as high, is it considered as an obstacle to collaboration?) 17

Results of the survey

• Sample :

18

Age moyen 10 ansSecteur Santé Humaine 81%

Biotechnologie agricole 11.90%Ressources naturelles 2.40%Environnement 4.80%Aquaculture 2.40%Bioinformatique 4.80%Autre 14.30%

Taille moyenne 40 employees(Median) (12 employees)

Spin-Offs 41.50%Niveau de développement R&D et tests précliniques 27.00%

Tests cliniques et approbation réglementaire 41.60%Commercialisation 31.40%

Compagnies qui ont des revenus issus de la biotech 43.90%Partenariats Firmes déclarant avoir eu des partenariats 71.40%

Nombre moyen de partenariats / firme ayant collaboré 6

Nombre de répondants 44Questionnaires valides 42Taux de réponse 27%

Results of the survey

Is a risk associated to partnerships?

19

Perception du risqueAlpha de Cronbach

(Fidélité du construit)

Moyenne Ecart Type

Risque de non atteinte des objectifs 0,6795 5,00 1,299Risque de conflit 0,7724 4,56 1,189Risque d'incompatibilité 0,8812 4,28 1,515Risque de comportement opportuniste 0,7056 4,10 1,023Risque d'inhibition 0,8314 3,89 1,431Risque d'irréversibilité 0,6915 3,68 1,416Risque de fuite de connaissances 0,7025 2,81 1,083Risque d'asymétrie dans les opérations 0,8979 2,68 1,556Risque d'asymétrie à la négociation 0,7942 2,43 0,981Risque d'absorption 0,9591 2,38 1,254

HIGHER

LOWER

Results of the survey

When a risk is perceived as high, is it considered as an obstacle to collaboration?

20

Obstacles à la formation de partenariats Moyenne Ecart Type

Risque d'asymétrie dans les opérations 4,81 1,903Risque de non atteinte des objectifs 4,51 2,002Risque d'asymétrie à la négociation 4,50 2,167Risque de comportement opportuniste 4,24 1,708Risque d'irréversibilité 4,05 1,847Risque de conflit 4,05 2,012Risque d'inhibition 3,95 2,186Risque d'incompatibilité 3,74 1,712Risque de fuite de connaissances 3,55 1,699Risque d'absorption 2,69 1,423

HIGHER

LOWER

Preliminary results

• Proposition 1a, 1b, validated:– SMEB managers perceive partnerships as risky

situations. – SMEB managers identify different types of risks

related to partnerships.

• Proposition 2, validated:– Some risks are perceived as obstacle to the

decision to collaborate

21

Control variables

• Does the way risks are perceived or their influence on the decision to collaborate depend or not on situational variables specific to a manager’s organization?

• Age• Spin off• Experience of previous partnerships• Membership in networks

22

Age differences among companies?

23

Age < 10 ans Age > 10 ans p(1)

Perception du niveau de risqueRisque de comportement opportuniste 3,8167 4,3619 0,037 **Risque d'absorption 2,025 2,7143 0,038 **Risque de non atteinte des objectifs 5,225 4,7857 0,075 *

ObstacleRisque d'asymétrie dans les opérations 5,3 4,3636 0,035 **Risque d'inhibition 4,7 3,2727 0,033 **Risque de conflit 4,55 3,5909 0,052 *Risque d'incompatiblité 4,15 3,3636 0,076 *Risque de non atteinte des objectifs 5 4,0909 0,058 *

(1)Test unilatéral de Mann-Whitney

p<0,10*

p<0,05**

p<0,01***

p<0,001****

Age differences among companies? Level of perceived risk :• Managers of firms that are less than 10 years old perceive a higher risk of

non-achievement of goals• Managers of firms that are more than 10 years old perceive a higher :

– Risk of opportunistic behaviour– Risk of absorption

Importance of obstacles:• Managers of firms that are less than 10 years old consider that the following

risks are stronger obstacles: – Risk of asymmetry in operations– Risk of inhibition– Risk of incompatibility– Risk of leak of knowledge– Risk of non-achievement of the goals

24

Differences depending on the origin (spin-off) of a company ?

Level of perceived risk :• Managers of firms that are not spin-offs perceive a higher risk of :

– Risk of asymmetry in operations – Risk of inhibition – Risk of opportunistic behaviour – Risk of absorption

Importance of obstacles :• Managers of firms that are not spin-offs consider that the following risks

are stronger obstacles : – Risk of asymmetry in negotiations– Risk of asymmetry in operations – Risk of inhibition – Risk of irreversibility – Risk of conflict – Risk of absorption

25

Differences related to development level?

Level of perceived risk :• Managers from firms in R&D and preclinical tests stages perceive a

lower risk of absorption than managers from companies in clinical tests phases or commercialization phases.

• Managers from firms in clinical tests stages perceive a higher risk of opportunistic behaviour than managers from companies in earlier (R&D and preclinical) and later stages (commercialization).(Critical phase)

Importance of obstacles :• No differences among obstacles

26

Differences related to the past partnerships experiences?

Level of perceived risk :• Managers of firms that never participated in collaborations perceive :

– a higher risk of leak of knowledge– a lower risk of inhibition

Importance of obstacles :• Managers fof companies that never participated in collaborations consider

that the following risks are stronger obstacles :– Risk of asymmetry in negotiations– Risk of asymmetry in operations – Risk of irreversibility – Risk of incompatibility

Experience tends to lower levels of risk perceptions, and tends to lower the importance of obstacles (for quoted items)

27

Differences related to the membership in networks / associations?

Level of perceived risk :• Managers from firms declaring they are part of networks perceive a

lower risk of incompatibility

Importance of obstacles :• Managers from firms declaring they are part of networks consider

that the risk of conflict is a lower obstacle

28

Conclusion

• Proposition 3 has been validated (differences related to situational variables)

• Managers must identify the types of risk that are specific to their organization in order to control the obstacles to collaboration.

• Allows to help firms in their seek for a partner (by telling them how to act in order to decrease the risk perception of their potential partners) !

29