NewCooperationModes:AnOpportunity forPolishBiotechnologicalClusters ŁukaszPuślecki PoznańUniversityofEconomics,Poland lukasz.puslecki@ue.poznan.pl MichałStaszków PoznańUniversityofEconomics,Poland michal.staszkow@ue.poznan.pl Thisarticlereviewsnewcooperationformsbetweencompanies,referring tothelatestdatafromtheasap(theAssociationofStrategicAlliancePro- fessionals).Potentialcooperationbetweencompanies,universitiesandre- searchinstitutesinthefieldofbiotechnologyinPolandbasedonamodel ofopeninnovationalliancesarepresented.Biopharmaceuticalcompanies arelookingfornewandinnovativepathsofdevelopment.Theytrytoim- plementnewstrategiestotransfertheirresearchprocessestoahigherlevel. Toachievethis,biopharmaceuticalcompaniesoftenuseopeninnovation modelasanadditionaltoolfordevelopingnewproducts.Thankstotheco- operationwithuniversitiesintheframeworkofopeninnovationalliances, theycansignificantlyreducetherisk,thecostofresearch,andmostof all,throughjointworkwithacademicresearchersonidentifyingdisease mechanismsandondevelopmentofnewdrugs,theyareabletocreateim- provedandappropriatemedicaltherapyforpatients. Key Words:biopharma,strategicalliance,openinnovationalliance, biotechnologicalcluster,scienceandtechnologyparks jel Classification: m13,o32,o35 Introduction Manyfactorsnecessitatecooperationinpartnershipsofcompaniesin differentsectorsoftheeconomy.Theseincludeagreaterriskandcom- plexproductdevelopmentprocess,globalisationoftheeconomiesand demandformoreandmoreinnovativeservicesandproducts(Puślecki 2010).Thisinducesthegrowthofadvancedandcomplexalliancesbe- tweencompanies,includingincreaseinglobalstrategicrelationships.In suchpartnerships,theorganisationalandculturaldifferences,aswellas theinvolvementofmanypartiesintheimplementationofthepartnership shouldbeconsidered.Biopharmaceuticalcompany(BioPharmacompa- nies–inthealliancereferredliterature,definedasacombinationofthe ManagingGlobalTransitions13(2):171–188 172 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków biotechandpharmaceuticalindustries.)pursuejointprojectsusingvar- ioustypesofstrategictechnologicalagreements,suchas:joint-venture (jv),r&dcontracts,r&dagreements,jointr&dagreements,research contracts(DuystersandHagedoorn2000).Thecooperationwithintech- nologicalalliancesenablessignificantsynergyeffectsandenhancessuc- cessfulresearchanddevelopmentprojects.Throughnewandinnovative pathsofdevelopmentandsuccessfulstrategiesofknowledgetransfer,the entitiesinvolvedhavedevelopednewmodelsofcollaborationwithindus- tryanduniversitiesinrecentyears.Allianceswithuniversitiesandaca- demicresearchinstitutesallowadvancedpreclinicalandclinicalresearch inthejointdevelopmentofnewdrugs.Today’slargebiopharmaceutical companiescanhavefrom20tomorethan40allianceswithuniversi- tiesandresearchinstitutionsintheirportfolios.Suchcollaborational- lowscompaniestoreducetheirr&dcostsignificantlyandtointroduce newsolutionsandtechnologiestothemarketmuchfasterthanbefore (Lavietes2012).Usingefficientalliancemanagementtoolsandqualified alliancemanagers(alsothoseemployedatuniversitiesorinresearchin- stitutes),thebiopharmaceuticalcompaniescanachievehighersra(Suc- cessRateofAlliances)oftheiralliances(DeMan,Duysters,andNeyes 2009;DeManetal.2012). Thispaperreviewsnewcooperationformsbetweencompanies,based onthelatestdatafromtheasap(theAssociationofStrategicAlliance Professionals)andfrominternationalconferences,includingtheasap AnnualGlobalAllianceSummit2012–MasteringtheArtandScience ofAllianceinLasVegas,asapAnnualGlobalAllianceSummit2013– Leadership.Performance.Value,inOrlando.Thesecondandthirdchap- terofthepaperconstituteatheoreticalbaseoftheanalysisandarede- votedtothedifferenttheoreticalapproachestothephenomenaoftechno- logicalcooperation,strategicalliancesandopeninnovation.Thefourth chapterpresentsexamplesofopeninnovationalliancesinbiopharmaceu- ticalindustry.TheanalysisofPolishbiopharmaceuticalindustryiscon- ductedinordertopresentpotentialcooperationpathsforPolishcompa- nies,universitiesandresearchinstitutes.Theconceptofopeninnovation alliancesintwobiotechnologyclusters–theLifeScienceParkinCracow andLodzBioNanoParkisdiscussed.Thelastpartcontainsconclusions anddiscussion. LiteratureReview Intheeconomicandmanagementliteraturewecanfindmanyinter- esting publications on technological cooperation between companies: ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 173 thedistinctionbetweencooperationbasedonthetransferandexchange oftechnology,r&darrangementsandjoint-ventures(Auster1987;Cas- son1987;Chesnais1988;ContractorandLorange1988a).Technological agreementcanbedividedfromone-directionaltotheonesthatarebased onstrongrelationshipsbetweencompanies,e.g.joint-ventures,research corporations,ontheotherhand,thosewhichrequirelessorganisational dependencies(contractualarrangementssuchasjointr&dagreements ortechnologyexchangeagreements).Manystudieshaveshownthatthese typesoftechnologicalcooperationhavedifferenteffectsonthenature of the sharing of technology, organisational aspects and the possible economicconsequencesforthecompaniesparticipatingincooperation (Auster1987;Root1988;ContractorandLorange1988b;Hagedoorn1990; Hagedoorn,Link,andVorontas2000;Gomes-Casseres,Hagedoorn,and Jaffe2006;DeManandDuysters2007;DeMan,Duysters,andNeyes 2009).Takingintoaccountstrategicalliancesandopeninnovation,we canobservethatthesetwostreamsofresearchhavedevelopedseparately, includingdistinctassumptionsandresearchquestions.However,accord- ingtoJoelWest(2014)‘thereisanaturalaffinitybetweenthesestreams intermsofphenomena,theoreticalpredictionsandmanagerialimplica- tions.Bothstreamsassumethatinnovationiscollaborative(andoften complementary),andthatsuchcollaborationsarecrucialforfirmsto createandcapturevaluefromtheirinnovations.’ In prior research strategic alliances were defined as a cooperation agreement between two organisations. They can be understood as a specialmodeofcooperationbetweenatleasttwoparties(competitors orpartners)operatinginthesameorrelatedsectorswiththeaimof achievingcommongoalswhichhavebeensetupwiththeuseofavail- ableresources,whilepreservingtheautonomyofeachpartner,inarange offieldsandareasnotcoveredbythepartnershipagreement(Gomes- Casseres1996;Das2005).Thesealliancesaretypicallyformedbetween twofirmsbutcompaniesmayalsocreateallianceswithuniversities,re- searchinstitutes,nonprofitresearchorganisations,orgovernmentinsti- tutions(Baum,Calabrese,andSilverman2000).Takingintoconsider- ationtechnologicalalliances,theyareimplementedprimarilythrough jointventures(anallianceoftwoormoreparticipantsformingasep- arateentitywiththeaimofachievingcommongoals);so-calledequity alliances;or,withincapitalalliancesandr&dcooperationagreements, so-callednon-equityalliances. Technologicalalliancesareunderstoodasstrategiciftheyimprovethe long-termperspectiveoftheproductmarketcombinationsforatleast Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 174 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków onecompanyinvolvedincooperation.Suchstrategictechnologypartner- shipsdifferfromotherformsofalliances,forexamplethoseconcludedin ordertoreducecosts,whicharerelatedmoretocontroloftransactionor operatingcostsofcompanies.Technologicalpartnershipsaredefinedas aformofcooperationwhichincludesatleastsomeinnovativeactivityor anexchangeoftechnologybetweenpartners(DuystersandHagedoorn 2000). Muchoftheinterestinresearchonstrategicalliancescamefromthe possibilityofspreadingthecostsandbenefitsofinnovation,asaresult ofcooperation(Hamel1991;Hagedoorn,Link,andVonortas2000;Kale, Harbir,andHoward2000;Hagedoorn2002;West2014;Culpan2014). Forinnovativeactivityofcooperatingcompaniesitisreallyimportant thatalliancesarerelevanttoopeninnovationandopeninnovationto alliances.Fromthebeginning,theresearchersfocusedonuseofopen innovationbycompaniestoallowthemimprovementofinnovationper- formancebyleveraginginnovationcreationandcommercialisationpaths outsidetheirfirmboundaries(Chesbrough2003;2006;West,Vanhaver- beke,andChesbrough2006).AccordingtothelatestdefinitionbyChes- broughopeninnovationsis‘adistributedinnovationprocessbasedon purposivelymanagedknowledgeflowsacrossorganisationalboundaries, usingpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarymechanismsinlinewitheachor- ganisation’sbusinessmodel’(ChesbroughandBogers2014).Theresults ofresearchonopeninnovationhaveshownhowfirmsmanageboththe inflowsandoutflowsofknowledgeandhowtheysearchforpartnersand theinnovationstheyprovide(Culpan2014;West2014).Moreoverwecan alsoobservehowcompaniesinspecificindustries(likebiopharma)use themodelofopeninnovationtocreateopeninnovationalliancesnot onlywithfirmsbutalsowithuniversities,individuals,communitiesor otherorganisations(DeWittandBurke2012;oecd2012;WilksandPro- thmann2012). Takingintoaccountsignificantresultsofsuchcooperationinformof openinnovationalliances,aswellaspublic-privatepartnershipsandre- searchconsortiainusandukinbioparmaindustry,especiallyindrug discoveryandimplementationofnewbiopharmaceuticalproducts,we discussinthispaperthepotentialcooperationbetweencompanies,uni- versitiesandresearchinstitutesinformofopeninnovationalliancesin Polishbiotechnologyclusters.Takingintoconsiderationthepotentialof Polishbiopharmaceuticalindustryweassumethatopeninnovational- liancesinbiotechclusterscouldbeimplemented. ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 175 OpenInnovationAlliances:CooperationofBusiness, UniversitiesandResearch Theneedforcooperationoninnovativeprojectsaffecteduseofmod- ernmodelsofpartnershipsinvolvingtheprinciplesofOpenInnovation. Chesbrough(2003)definesopen innovationastheparadigmstatingthat companiescanandshoulduseexternalandinternalideas,aswellas internalandexternalpathstoenternewmarkets.Thisconceptcanbe usedwithintheframeworkofbilateralandmultilateralalliances.Open innovationmodelismoredynamicthantraditionalalliances.Alliance partnersarenotinfactidentifiedintheconventional,purposefulway. Relationshipsbetweenpartnersrelymoreontheexchangeofideasand knowledgeduringtheperiodprecedingtheestablishmentofthealliance. Openinnovationalliancesarecreatedtosupportthefreeflowofknowl- edgeandideasthatwillleadtothecreationofpartnershipsaimednot onlyatjointinnovation,butalsoatriskandincomesharing.Companies havedefinedandimplementedopeninnovationinanumberofways,in- cludingbuildinginnovativeecosystemsorinnovationsforusers,crowd- sourcingorthroughthecreationofjointdevelopmentalliances.Openin- novationalliancesmayincludepartnershipsbetweenprofit-basedcom- paniesandnon-profitorganisations(e.g.universities).Thisformofco- operationinrecentyearshasarousedincreasinginterestofbiopharma- ceuticalcompanies(WilksandProthmann2012). Biopharmaceuticalcompanieshavecooperatedwithuniversitiesfor manyyears.Atthebeginning,thecooperationfocusedmainlyonin- dividual,singleprojects,fromsmallresearchprojectstolargeclinical trials.Then,thecompaniesenteredallianceswithindividualacademic institutions,coveringawiderrangeofcooperation,interalia:research programs,clinicaltrialsandtranslationalresearch,inordertotransfer theresultsofbasicresearchtopracticalapplication.Companiesalsoin- creasinglybegantousedifferentmodelsofalliances,fromindividual linksinresearchprojectstomultilateralagreementsinvolvingmultiple researchprojects,includingvariousmodelsforopeninnovation,forex- amplewherethemainroleofanacademicinstitutionwasthecoordina- tionandsometimesfundingofotherinstitutionsMoreoverinlastyears biotechnologyandpharmaceuticalcompaniesaremoreinvolvedinmul- tilateralcooperationintheframeworkofknowledgenetworksoropen innovationalliancesaswellaspublic-privatepartnerships(forinstance PfizerorGlaxoSmithKline)(oecd2012;WilksandProthmann2012). Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 176 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków Academic institution Academic institution Academic institution Biotechnology cluster Coordinating institution Academic institution Academic institution Academic institution figure1 AnExampleofthePossibleUseofOpenInnovationwithAcademic InstitutionAsaCoordinating(andFunding)EntityinPolishBiotechnology Clusters(adaptedfromWilksandProthmann2012,45) Thegoalofthesepartnershipsistounderstandthemechanismsofdis- easesandthediscoveryofnewutilityofexistingdrugsthatbeyondtheir currentcurativerolewillallowidentificationanddevelopmentofnew drugs.Bythedevelopmentofpartnershipswithacademiccommunity, newalliancemodelshavebeendeveloped,whicharebasedontheopen innovationmodelinordertoshareentrepreneurialriskandprofit.Par- ticipationofcoordinatinginstitutionsignificantlyenhancestheintroduc- tionofstandardisationandhasanimpactontheeffectivenessoftheal- liance.Italsoprovidesnetworkinglinksandprocessesbetweenacademic institutionsandfirm,whoarewillingtoformthealliance.Increasedtrust betweencompaniesfromtheindustryandacademicinstitutionsthanks totheintermediaryrole,strengthenstheinnovationandprovidessup- portandfundingforresearchproposals.Theuseofopeninnovation modelcansignificantlyspeeduptheproductionprocessofnewdrugs andbiotechnologyproducts(Lavietes2012;WilksandProthmann2012). Moreover,involvementinthecooperationofmoreinterdisciplinaryaca- demicteamsmayalsoacceleratetheproductionandapplicationofnew biotechnologicalproducts.Thatiswhytheco-operationofthesamere- searchersisveryimportant.Withextensivecontacts,interdisciplinaryre- searchteamshavein-depthknowledgeofmanyaspectsoftheresearch, whichcanbebeneficialespeciallyintheconceptualphaseofproductde- velopment.Thismodeofcooperation–openinnovationalliancecould bealsoimplementedwithpositiveresultsinPolishbiotechnologyclusters (figure1). ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 177 InPolandtherearemanyongoinginitiativesandprojectsreferringto theconceptofcluster.Themostcommondefinitionofaclusterwasde- velopedbyPorter(1998),accordingtowhomaclusteris‘agroupofcom- paniesexistinginageographicalneighbourhoodalongwiththeinstitu- tionswhicharerelatedtothemanddealwithaparticularactivity,con- nectedbysimilaritiesandcompetingwithoneanother.’Themostimpor- tantinthisdefinitionarerelationships,cooperationandterritorialbonds whichinconsequenceshouldgenerateaddedvalueandleadtoacom- petitiveadvantageonthemarket(Ratajczak-MrozekandHerbeć2013). Ketels(2004)definedalsomainattributesofclusters: • Proximity:theentitiesneedtobesufficientlyandspatiallycloseto permitpositivespill-overandenablethesharingofcommonre- sourcestooccur; • Linkages:theiractivitiesneedtoshareacommongoalforthemto beabletoprofitfromproximityandinteractions; • Interactions:beingcloseandworkingonrelatedissuesdoesnotseem tobeenough–somelevelofinteractionisessential; • Critical mass:asufficientnumberofparticipantsbeingpresentis requiredfortheinteractionstohaveameaningfulimpactoncom- panies. Similar definition was provided by European Commission (2003): ‘Clustersaregroupsofindependentcompaniesandassociatedinstitu- tionsthatare: • Collaboratingandcompeting; •Geographicallyconcentratedinoneorseveralregions,eventhough theclustermayhaveglobalextensions; • Specialisedinaparticularfield,linkedbycommontechnologiesand skills; • Eitherscience-basedortraditional; • Clusterscanbeeitherinstitutionalised(theyhaveapropercluster manager)ornon-institutionalised.’ Accordingtoabovementioneddefinitionsthereareusuallyseveral partiesinclusterinitiatives.Thosearefirstofallentrepreneurs,butalso financialinstitutions,publicentities–suchaslocalauthorities,universi- ties,mediaandorganisationsstimulatingcooperation.Thesituationin whichtheinitiativetoestablishtheclustergoesoutoffirmsandisman- agedbythemisso-calledbottom-upapproach,incontrarytotop-down Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 178 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków approach,whereactivitiesareundertakenbypublicauthorities.Bottom- upmodelseemstobemoreeffectivebecauseitarisesfromtheneedof themarket.Thisdoesnotexcludecooperationwithpublicauthorities andpublicinstitutions,butallowstobuildtrust,whichineffectbrings specificbenefits(CookeandMorgan2002): • Improvingtheeconomicefficiencybysavingtimeandeffortrelated tospecificactivities,becausetheycanrelyonthewordofpartner; • Reductionoftheriskassociatedwiththeactivity; • Thedevelopmentoftheabilitytolearnbythefactthatinstitutions andcompaniesarepartiesintheprocessofinformationexchange. ExamplesofCooperationbetweenCompanies,Universities andResearchInstitutesinBiopharmainPoland Thepharmaceuticalandbiotechnologyindustriesareconsideredasone of the most innovative sectorsof the Polish economy.Following sec- ondarydatafromPolishInformationandForeignInvestmentAgency andfdiIntelligenceRanking,Polandwasranked5th(inatiewithRus- sia)intheworldrankingofforeignbiotechnologicalinvestmentsin2010, havingattracted14largeinvestorsinbiotechindustry.Itwasahugesuc- cesssinceayearbefore,in2009,Polandmanagedtoattractonlyonein- vestmentfromthissector.Countrieswhorankedhigherwere:usa(38 investments),China(27),GreatBritain(22)andIndia(16).fdiIntelli- gencerankedPoland11thplaceintheworldintermsofattractivenessfor r&dinvestmentinthebiotechnologysector(fdiInteligence2011). Highrankingpositionswouldnothavebeenpossiblehadtherenot been top scientific staff available. Moreover, biotechnology is one of themostpopularmajorsinPoland.Also,thepharmaceuticalmarket inPolandisoneoftheindustrieswiththelongesttraditioninPoland. Thismarkethasundergoneanumberoffundamentalchangesinthe lasttwentyyears.Theownershipstructureturnedfromstate-ownedinto private.Additionally,newregulations(e.g.changesintheregulations concerningtherulesfordrugs’trading)areinplace.Theadministra- tivesystemofpublichealthservicemanagementhasalsobeenchanged (introductionoftheNationalHealthFund–nfz).Therewerealsostruc- turalchangesintheindustry:anincreaseinthenumberofpharmacies andpharmaceuticalwholesalersandconsolidationoftheabovemen- tionedandthegrowingroleofforeignpharmaceuticalcompaniesasin- vestors(Tra ¸pczyńskiandWrona2012a;2012b).Accordingtothedata ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 179 table1 TheBiggestPharmaceuticalCompaniesinPoland Company Location/s Marketshare Sanofi-Grupa(includingZentiva) Rzeszów,Chociw , Novartis(includingSandoz) Stryków , gsk Poznan , Polpharma StarogardGdański, Duchnice,Sieradz , Roche Warsaw , Servier Warsaw , Merck(msd) Warsaw , Pfizer Warsaw , TevaGroup Cracow,Kutno , AstraZeneca Warsaw , Krka Warsaw , Adamed(includingPolfaPabianice) Pieńków,Pabianice , notes Adaptedfrompaiiiz(,). includedinthereportonpharmaceuticalmarketinPoland,providedby EspicomBusinessInteligencecompanyandpublishedbyPolishInfor- mationandForeignInvestmentAgency(paiiiz2011),overthepast10 years,thepharmaceuticalmarketinPolandrecordedasteadygrowthand reachedpln22.3billionin2011.Incomparisonwiththepreviousyear, salesincreasedbyanimpressive11.Theaverageannualgrowthratein theperiod2003–2010was6.5.Theestimatedvaluewillprobablyreach morethan60billionplnby2016(currentprices).Thepharmaceutical industrycontributedto0.8gdpin2010(paiiiz2011;2012). PolandisthelargestpharmaceuticalmarketinCentralandEastern Europe(andthesixthinEurope).Nearly33ofpharmaceuticaland biotechnologycompanieshavetheirheadquartersintheMazowieckie Region(Warsaw)(table1).Almost80ofallcompaniescanbeclassi- fiedasmicro-enterprises.ThesignificantPolishadvantageinthefieldof biotechnologyandpharmacyisthenearly20,000universitystudentsand morethan3,000graduatesinbiotechnologyandpharmacy.Inaddition, biotechnologyisoneoftheprioritysectorssupportedbythePolishgov- ernment(paiiiz2011;2012). Intermsofthesizeofinvestmentinresearchanddevelopment,Poland clearlystandsoutamongthecountriesoftheEuropeanUnionontwo levels.Polandhasoneofthelowestpublicexpenditureonr&d(asper- Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 180 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 figure2 Value(Billionpln,CurrentPrices–line)andYearlyGrowth(–columns) ofthePharmaceuticalMarketinPoland(adaptedfrompaiiiz2012,4) centageofgdp).Second,thepublicsectorinvestmentexceedstheex- penditureincurredbyprivatecompanies.However,Pelle,Bober,andLis (2008)pointedfivemainareasinwhichgovernmentcanhelptoimprove thecompetitivepositionofthePolisheconomy: • Scientific and technological base–concentrationofpublicfunding forresearchinstrategicareas(includingtechnologicalforesight), internationalisationofscienceandinnovation,thedevelopmentof institutionsprovidingadvisoryandtechnicalservicesforinnovative entrepreneurs,widespreaduseofinformation–communication;fi- nancialaidshouldfocusoninstitutionsandorganisationswiththe greatestpotentialtocarryoutsuccessfulresearch; • Formal and informal networks of science and industry–toimprove regulationsonpublic-privatepartnershipsandbetterprotectionof intellectualpropertyinuniversities; • Institutional environment – creating a business friendlyenviron- ment,bysimplifyingthelawandthetaxsystem; • Staff development–tocreateincentivesforresearcherstoprofes- sional development and cooperation with business; the develop- mentoflifelonglearning,knowledgetransferbetweenr&dsphere andentrepreneursthroughexchangeofhumanresourcesandhigh- lighttheissuesofentrepreneurshipineducationalprograms; ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 181 table2 MainFeaturesofScienceandTechnologyParks Goal Enhancingknowledgetransferfromuniversitiestobusiness. Infrastructural Highquality,lowbuildingconstructionratio,coupledwithawide rangeofbusinesssupportservices. Links Universityorasuitabler&dcentremustbeformallycommittedto collaboratewiththescienceparkandfirms(normally,universities shouldhaveanimportantroleinthescienceparksmanagement). Access Restrictedtoknowledgeactivities,withpossiblesectoralpreferences (ifknowledgebaseissignificantacrossdifferentscientificfieldsand thereisentrepreneurialcriticalmass–notlikelyinmany‘followers’ regions). notes AdaptedfromAlmeida,Santos,andSilva(2009,5). • Long-term innovation management program at the national level– buildingplanningsystemoninnovationinthelongterm,andbetter individualinstitutionsinthecreationandimplementationofinno- vationpolicy. Theanswertothesedemandsistheconceptofscienceandtechnol- ogyparkswhichwassuccessfullyimplementedinmoredevelopedcoun- tries,likeUnitedStates,GreatBritain,Finland,SwedenorGermany.Sci- enceandtechnologyparks(stps)alsocontributetothedevelopment ofbiotechnologyandpharmacyinPoland.stpspromotethetransferof knowledgefromuniversitiestobusiness(Staszków2013).Table2presents thefeaturesoftheparkinitiativesthatfacilitatenetworkingbetweensci- entificinstitutionsandentrepreneurs. AccordingtothePwC(2011)survey,everyinnovativepharmaceutical companyparticipatesonaverageinaround5projectsaimedatbuildinga coalitioninsidetheindustry.Thereisanumberofclustersandnumerous technologyparksinPolandthatprovidetheinfrastructureforthedevel- opmentofinnovativebiotechnologicalandpharmaceuticalproducts–in particular,thelaboratoryspace. In2012–2013,withfundingfromtheInnovativeEconomyprogram, therewereestablishedorganisationswhoseobjectiveisthedevelopment ofbiotechnologyinPoland.Theseinclude,theLifeScienceParkinCra- cowandLodzBioNanoPark. Companies from the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical, food andenvironmentalprotection,researchinstitutes,hospitalsandfoun- dationsrelatedtohealthcare,localauthorities,consultanciesandother businesssupportunitsfromtheMałopolskaregionclusteredintothe Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 182 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. GdánskScienceandTechnologyPark 2. PomeranianScienceandTechnologyPark 3. PoznanScienceandTechnologyPark 4. NickelTechnologyParkPoznan 5. Wielkopolska BioRegion 6. PolishTechnologicalPlatformofInnovative Medicine 7. Biocentre Ochota Consortium 8. InnoBioBizŁodźCluster 9. BioTechMedTechnologyCentre 10. ŁodźTechnopark 11. NutribiomedCluster 12. WroclawResearchCentre eit+ 13. WroclawTechnologyPark 14. LifeScienceClusterKrakow 15. JagiellonianCentreofInnovation figure3 LocationofClustersandScienceandTechnologyParksSpecialisedinthe BiotechnologyandPharmacy(Biopharma)inPoland(adaptedfrompaiiiz 2012,5) Life Science Cluster Cracow in 2006. To date, more than 70 entities havejoinedin.Thelargestgroupofbusinessesaresmes(47),other publicinstitutions(31),whilelargeenterprisesaccountfor18.The managing entity is the Jagiellonian Centre of Innovation, which was founded by the Jagiellonian University. Beside Jagiellonian, the clus- tercooperateswithotheruniversities,includingtheaghUniversityof ScienceandTechnology,theUniversityofPhysicalEducationinCra- cow,CracowUniversityofTechnology,AgricultureUniversityofCra- cow,theChemicalSchoolofCracow,r&dinstitutes,includingPolish AcademyofSciencesinstitutes:InstituteofPharmacology,Instituteof NuclearPhysics,InstituteofCatalysisandSurfaceChemistry.Twoother institutionsareOilandGasInstituteandtheNationalResearchInsti- tuteofAnimalProduction.Cooperationoftheentitieslistedwithinthe clusteraimsatincreasingtheefficiencyofuseofthescientific,cultural, andeconomicpotentialofentitiesfromCracowandMalopolska.Italso contributestothecommercialisationofresearchresultsandknowledge transfertothebusiness.Promotionandsupportofinnovationinthe fieldoflifescienceisanotheractivityofthecluster.TheCracowclus- terinparticularofferscooperation,facilitatesaccesstoknowledgeand specialisedresearchteams.Itsupportsentrepreneurshipandenhances linksbetweencompaniesandresearchcentres(seehttp://lifescience.pl/o -klastrze-lifescience). Anotherexampleofbiotechnologycooperationatascienceandtech- ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 183 nologyparkisBioNanoParkinLodz,whichoperateswithintheTechno- parkLodz.TechnoparkLodzwasestablishedin2003.Itsmainsharehold- ersaretheMunicipalityofLodz,LodzMarshal’sOffice,theUniversityof Lodz,LodzUniversityofTechnology,MedicalUniversityofLodzandthe ChamberofIndustryandCommerceofLodz.TheBioNanoParkisone ofPoland’sstateoftheartlaboratorycomplexes,worthpln76million. Notably,pln53millionweretheeufunds.By2015,theBioNanoPark shouldreceiveadditionalpln100millioninvestmentviatheeufund- ingprogrammes.TheBioNanoPark+wasfoundedwithintheEuropean CentreforBio-andNanotechnologyproject,whichwaspreparedbythe LodzUniversityofTechnology.Therearetwootheruniversitieswhotake partinthisproject–theUniversityofLodzandtheMedicalUniversity ofLodz.Thegoaloftheprojectisfortheexistinglaboratoriesinbiotech- nologyandbiophysicslaboratoriestobecomplementedbylaboratories ofbiosensors,foodauthentication,physical-chemicalcharacterisationof nanomaterialsandpersonalisedmedicine.Laboratorieswillbeprovided withthedllmachine,thesocalledsupercomputer.firneu,theRus- siancompanythatintendstousethescientificpotentialofLodzstudents andamoderninfrastructureofBioNanoPark,willalsoinvestintechno parkinLodz(seeBiotechnologia.pl). AnalysingthenumberofentitiesinvolvedintheoperationoftheLife ScienceClusterKrakowandLodzBioNanoPark,especiallyuniversities andresearchinstitutes,onecanconcludethattheycansuccessfullyap- plytheopeninnovationalliancescooperationmodel.Inaddition,the involvementofacoordinatinginstitutioninaclusterorpark,canim- provecommunication,strengthenstandardisationandcreatenetworks andprocessesforacademicinstitutionswhoarewillingtoformanal- liancewithinacluster.Themodelmayalsoimprovetheefficiencyof scientific,cultural,economic,andmostofall,innovativepotential.A greaterfocusofthebusinessesoncooperationwithuniversitiesandre- searchinstitutesmayresultinfasterproductcommercialisationorre- ducingresearch-to-outcomeschedules,whichisofutmostimportance forthedevelopmentofbiotechnologyproducts.Toachievethosegoalsit isimportanttocreateallianceswithinterdisciplinaryresearchteams.Bi- lateralcooperationbetweentheentitiesmentioned–LifeScienceCluster KrakowandLodzBioNanoParkisnecessary.Jointactivitieswithinanal- liancewillcontributetothedynamicdevelopmentofthebiotechsectorin PolandandimprovetheuseofresearchpotentialbothinLodzandCra- cow. Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 184 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków Conclusions Takingintoaccountthedevelopmentofthebiopharmaceuticalsectorin recentyears(thelargestnumberofnewlyestablishedtechnologystrate- gicalliances(Puślecki2012),itcanbeconcludedthatthesectoriscur- rentlythemostadvancedplatformforcooperationbetweendifferentpar- tiesatdifferentlevels(e.g.sectoralalliancesbetweencompanies,public- privatepartnerships,alliancesbetweenuniversitiesandresearchinstitu- tions,non-governmentalorganisations(ngos),homogeneousandhet- erogeneousnetworksofalliances)(DeWittandBurke2012).Biopharma- ceuticalcompaniesseekvariousformsofcooperationthatwillminimise theriskandwillsharethecostsofr&dinvestment.Increasingly,inad- ditiontopartnershipswithintheindustry,entitiesestablishrelationships withuniversitiesorresearchinstitutes.Thankstothecreationofthepart- nershipanduseofvarioustools,suchastechnologyparks,firmsmay usetheresources,competencies,technologyandknowledgefrompart- ners,andthuseasierrespondtochangesintheenvironment,andmostof all,quicklylaunchnewservicesandproducts(Wach2005).Wearesee- ingaslowprocessofextractingindustryspecialisationinPolishstps. Profilesresidents’specialisationincludeselection,cooperationwithspe- cificscientificentitiesandthedevelopmentofspecificservicesforapar- ticulartypeofbusiness.Themostpopularareinorder:(1)ict(65of theparks),(2)healthcare,medicalengineeringande-health(48);(3) biotechnology(36).Furtherareasinclude:electronics,renewableen- ergy,environmentalprotection,advancedchemistry.Severalindications alsoapplytoindustrialdesignandnewmaterials(PortalInnowacji,n.d.). Theresultsofresearchconductedbyiasponasampleof78parksin34 countriesconfirmthetrendofthedevelopmentofthesesectorsintech- nologyparks.87.3ofstpshaveComputer/Informaticsasatechnology sectorrepresentedintheirpark,81haveit/Telecommunications,74,7 haveSoftware,70,9haveInternettechnologiesandservicesand68,4 haveBiotechnology/LifeSciencesasatechnologysectorintheirpark (iasp2014).ThedevelopmenttrendinPolishparksisthereforepositive, however,takingintoaccountthedemandssetoutintheoecdreport, technologyparkscanbecomeevenmoreeffectivetoolforbuildingrela- tionshipsandtechnologytransfer. Cooperationenablesanumberofinnovativeprojectsandallowssig- nificantsynergyeffects.Firmsapplythemodelofopeninnovationasan additionaltoolinproductdevelopment.Theaimoftheallianceistosup- ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 185 portopeninnovation,thefreeflowofknowledgeandideasthatwilllead tothecreationofpartnershipsaimedatjointinnovation,aswellasrisk andprofitsharing.Cooperatingwithacademicinstitutions,particularly inthemodelofopeninnovationalliances,biopharmaceuticalcompanies operatinginclustersortechnologyparksinPolandcansignificantlyre- ducetheriskandcostofresearch,andaboveallincreasethelikelihoodof thedevelopmentofnew,orimprovepresentbiotechnologyorpharma- ceuticalproducts. References Almeida,A.,C.Santos,andM.R.Silva.2009.‘BridgingSciencetoEcon- omy:TheRoleofScienceandTechnologicParksinInnovationStrate- giesin“Follower”Regions.’Workingpaper,UniversidadedoPorto, asap–theAssociationofStrategicAllianceProfessionals,Porto. Auster,E.R.1987.‘InternationalCorporateLinkages:DynamicFormsin ChangingEnvironments.’ Columbia Journal of World Business22(2): 3–13. Baum,J.,T.Calabrese,andB.Silverman.2000.‘Don’tGoItAlone:Al- lianceNetworkCompositionandStartups’PerformanceinCanadian Biotechnology.’StrategicManagementJournal21(3):267–94. Casson,M.1987.TheFirmandtheMarket.Oxford:Blackwell. Chesbrough,H.2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.Boston,ma:HarvardBusinessSchool Press. Chesbrough,H.2006.‘OpenInnovation:ANewParadigmforUnder- standingIndustrialInnovation.’InOpenInnovation:ResearchingaNew Paradigm,editedbyH.Chesbrough,W.Vanhaverbeke,andJ.West,1– 12.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Chesbrough,H.,andM.Bogers.2014.‘ExplicatingOpenInnovation:Clar- ifyinganEmergingParadigmforUnderstandingInnovation.’InOpen Innovation:New FrontiersandApplications,editedbyH.Chesbrough, W.Vanhaverbeke,andJ.West,3–28.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Chesnais,F.,1988.‘MultinationalEnterprisesandtheInternationalDiffu- sionofTechnology.’In TechnicalChangeand EconomicTheory,edited byG.Dosi,C.Freeman,R.Nelson,G.Silverberg,andL.Soete,496–527. London:Pinter. Contractor,F.J.,andP.Lorange.1988a.Cooperative Strategies in Interna- tionalBusiness.Lexington:LexingtonBooks. ———.1988b.‘WhyShouldFirmsCooperate?TheStrategyandEconomics BasisforCooperativeVentures.’In Cooperative Strategies in Interna- tionalBusiness,editedbyF.J.ContractorandP.Lorange,3–31.Lexing- ton:LexingtonBooks. Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 186 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków Cooke,P.,andK.Morgan.2002. The Associational Economy: Firms, Re- gionsandInnovation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. CulpanR.,ed.2014.OpenInnovationthroughStrategicAlliances.NewYork: PalgraveMacMillan. Das,T.K.2005.‘DeceitfulBehaviorsofAlliancePartners:Potentialand Prevention.’ Management Decision43(5):706–19. DeMan,A.P.,andG.Duysters.2007.‘TheSecondAllianceManagement Study2007.’NetworkSocialInnovation,MaastrichtUniversity,Maas- tricht. DeMan,A.P.,G.Duysters,andI.Neyes.2009.‘TheThirdAllianceMan- agementStudy2009.’NetworkSocialInnovation,MaastrichtUniver- sity,Maastricht. DeMan,A.P.,G.Duysters,D.Luvison,andA.Krijnen.2012.‘TheFourth StateofAllianceManagementStudy2011.’Presentationat2012asap GlobalAllianceSummit,LasVegas,5–8March. DeWitt,J.,andM.Burke.2012.‘AlliancesThatCouldSavetheWorld.’ StrategicAllianceMagazineq4:36–41. Duysters,G.,andJ.Hagedoorn.2000.‘ANoteonOrganizationalModes ofStrategicTechnologyPartnering.’ Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research58:640–49. EuropeanCommission.2003.‘FinalReportoftheExpertGrouponEnter- priseClustersandNetworks.’EuropeanCommission,Brussels. fdiInteligence.2011.‘Biotechnology:WinnersandLosersof2010andLat- estState-LevelCompetivenessRankings.’http://www.atebion-bds.com /pdfs/fdi_overview_june_2010_BIO.pdf iasp.2014.‘iaspAbridgedSurvey.’InternationalAssociationofScience ParksandAreasofInnovation,Málaga. Gomes-Casseres,B.1996.TheAllianceRevolution:TheNewShapeofBusi- nessRivalry.Boston,ma:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress. Gomes-Casseres,B.,J.Hagedoorn,andA.B.Jaffe.2006.‘DoAlliancesPro- moteKnowledgeFlows?’JournalofFinancialEconomics80(1):5–33. Hagedoorn,J.1990.‘OrganizationalModesofInter-FirmCooperationand TechnologyTransfer.’ Technovation10(1):17–29. Hagedoorn,J.,A.Link,andN.Vonortas.2000.‘ResearchPartnerships.’ ResearchPolicy29(4):567–86. Hagedoorn,J.2002.‘Inter-Firmr&dPartnerships:AnOverviewofMajor TrendsandPatternsSince1960.’ ResearchPolicy31(4):477–92. Hamel,G.1991.‘CompetitionforCompetenceandInterpartnerLearning withinInternationalStrategicAlliances.’StrategicManagementJournal 12(s1):83–103. Kale, P., S. Harbir, and P. Howard. 2000. ‘Learning and Protection of ProprietaryAssetsinStrategicAlliances:BuildingRelationalCapital.’ StrategicManagementJournal21(3):217–37 ManagingGlobalTransitions New Cooperation Modes 187 Ketels,C.H.M.2004.‘EuropeanClusters.’InStructuralChangeinEurope 3:InnovativeCityandBusinessRegions,editedbyThomasMentzel,1–5. Bollschweil:Hagbarth. Lavietes,J.2012.‘WhentheProfMetBigPharma.’Strategic Alliance Mag- azineq4:46–51. oecd.2012. Knowledge Networks and Markets in the Life Sciences.Paris: oecd. paiiiz.2011. Sektorfarmaceutycznyibiotechnologicznyw Polsce.Warsaw: paiiiz. ———. 2012. Sektor farmaceutycznyi biotechnologicznyw Polsce.Warsaw: paiiiz. Pelle,D.,M.Bober,andM.Lis.2008.‘Parkitechnologicznejakoinstru- mentpolitykiwspieraniainnowacjiidyfuzjiwiedzy.’InstytutBadań Strukturalnych,Warszaw. PortalInnowacji.N.d.‘Parktechnologiczny.’http://www.pi.gov.pl/parp/ chapter_96055.asp?soid=C0831648103346B891F8CE0BB21B6BFE Porter,M.E.1998.‘ClustersandtheNewEconomicsofCompetition.’Har- vardBusinessReview76(6):77–90. Puślecki,Ł.2010. Wpływ współpracy technologicznej krajów rozwinie ¸tych gospodarczonaichkonkurencyjnośćmie ¸dzynarodowa ¸.Toruń:Grado. ———.2012.‘SectoralAnalysisofStrategicTechnologyAlliancesinYears 1980–2006.’Intercathedra28(4):79–83. PwC.2011.‘ImpactoftheInnovativePharmaIndustryonthePolishEcon- omy.’ PricewaterhouseCoopers, n.p. http://www.infarma.pl/uploads/ media/Impact_of_the_innovative_pharma_industry_on_the_Polish _economy.pdf Ratajczak-Mrozek,M.,andM.Herbeć.2013.‘ActiveandInactiveClusters inPolishFurnitureIndustry:TheIndustrialNetworkApproach.’Inter- cathedra29(3):85–94. Root,F.R.1988.‘SomeTaxonomiesofInternationalCooperativeArrange- ments.’In Cooperative Strategies in International Business,editedbyF. J.ContractorandP.Lorange,69–80.Lexington:LexingtonBooks. Staszków,M.2013.‘UseofCustomerSatisfactionIndexontheExampleof OfficeRentalServices.’Intercathedra29(3):95–99. Tra¸pczyński,P.,andT.Wrona.2012a.‘Re-ExplainingInternationalEntry Modes:InteractionandModeratingEffectsonEntryModesofPhar- maceuticalCompaniesintoTransitionEconomies.’EuropeanManage- mentJournal40(4):295–315. ———.2012b.‘DynamikinternationalerMarkteintrittsstrategien:DieIn- teraktionvonRisiko-Potenzial-BewertungenamBeispielpharmazeu- tischerUnternehmen.’InMarkteintrittsstrategien:DynamikundKom- plexität,editedbyJ.Zentes,124–52.Wiesbaden:Gabler. Wach,K.2005.‘Współpracamałychiśrednichprzedsie ¸biorstwzośrod- Volume13·Number2·Summer2015 188 ŁukaszPuśleckiandMichałStaszków kaminaukowo-badawczyminaprzykładzieKrakowskiegoParkuTech- nologicznego.’Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie 671:117–33. West,J.2014.‘OpenInnovation:LearningfromAllianceResearch.’InOpen InnovationthroughStrategicAlliances,editedbyR.Culpan,1–16.New York:PalgraveMacMillan. West,J.,W.Vanhaverbeke,andH.Chesbrough.2006.‘OpenInnovation: AResearchAgenda.’InOpenInnovation:ResearchingaNewParadigm, editedbyH.Chesbrough,W.Vanhaverbeke,andJ.West,285–307,Ox- ford:OxfordUniversityPress. Wilks,Ch.,andCh.Prothmann.2012.‘OpenInnovationAlliances,Novel Alliance Models Accelerate the Identification and Advancement of BreakthroughTherapies.’StrategicAllianceMagazineq4:42–5. Thispaper is published underthe termsof the Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (cc by-nc-nd 4.0) License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). ManagingGlobalTransitions