Do regional collaborations matter in biomedicine?

The case of Western Sweden

Jens Laage-HellmanIMIT and RIDE at Chalmers University of Technology

Annika RickneIMIT, The Dahmén Institute and Lund University

Background”Interactive research” on a regional development project (”Biomedical Development in Western Sweden”)

Purpose: study the dynamic mechanisms involved in RIS development

Underlying theoretical approach: Innovation systemsFunctional approach

Research activities:•Documentation of the early history•Survey to biomedical firms•Survey to biomedical researchers

Present paper: collaboration patterns in industry

Research puzzleThe interactive character of the innovation process•Acquisition and development of knowledge/resources•Learning•Customers/users, suppliers, universities…•Esp. In science-based and knowledge-intensive industries

The importance of regional collaboration/networking•Tacit nature of knowledge•Regions are the locus of innovation•Proximity matters!•Clustering of firms (e.g. in biotech)•Advantageous for individual firms to locate in strong clusters/RIS

The role of globalised collaboration/networking

Research questionsMain question: Do regional collaborations matter in biomedicine?

Specific issues:

•How does the firms value different types of knowledge?

•Through what types of channels is knowledge identified and acquired?

•What is the relative importance of different types of partners?

•What are the reasons for collaboration?

•To what extent is the geographical dimension important?

Research design

• Case: a) biomedicine, b) Western Sweden• Data collection: a) survey, b) complementing

interviews

Number Response rate

Total sample 222 35 % (78 firms)

Firms with R&D 123 46 % (57 firms)

Firms without R&D 99 21% (21 firms)

The collaborative patterns in biomedicine: Crucial types of knowledge & their sources

What types of knowledge is important for the company

1 2 3 4 5 6

Technological

Market

Application-specific

Scientific

Production

Design

Distribution/ logistics

1=Completely disagree 6=Completely agree

The importance of various channels for identification and acquisition of new knowledge areas and technologies

1 2 3 4 5 6

Recruitment from university

Cooperation with universities

Acquisition of other firms

Recruitment from industry

Cooperation with other firms

Acquisition of licenses

Patent analysis

Research reports & scientific journals

Participation in trade associations

Participation in EU-funded research projects

Conferences

1= Not important 6= Crucial

Patterns of collaboration How important are different types of organisations?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Customers

Suppliers

Universities

Producers of complementaryproducts/services

Research institutes

Healthcare providers

Public organisations

Competitiors

1=Not important 6=Crucial

How many partners does the firm have?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Competitiors Publicorganisations

Healthcareproviders

Researchinstitutes

Producers ofcomplementary

products orservices

Universities Customers Suppliers

Percentageof firms

0 1-3 4-10 11-20 >20

Cooperation for scientific projects and publications

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Never Seldom Sometimes Often

Motives for collaboration with companies

Our company collaborates with other firms to

Manufacture finalproducts

Marketproducts/services

Develop newtechnologies

Acquirecomponents/materials

Acquire newtechnologies

Never Often

Motives for collaboration with universities

Our company collaborates with universities and research institutes to

Develop newtechnologies

Acquire new technologies

Acquirecomponents/materials

Market products/services

Manufacture finalproducts

Never Often

Location of partners How imporant are partners in different locations

Europe

Region

Sweden

North America

Asia

1=Not important 6=Crucial

Main location of partners (industrial and health care)

Our firm collaborates with other

14%

6%

9%

19%

18%

19%

31%

21%

13%

29%

18%

29%

38%

36%

45%

33%

6%

24%

10%

9%

5%

19%

9%

13%

19%

9%

24%

61% 13%

Pharma firms

Diagnostic firms

Medtech firms

Biotech supply firms

C linical researchorganisations

Healthcare providers

I n the region I n Sweden I n Europe I n North America Elsewhere

Location of partnering universities and research institutes

Our firm collaborates with universities and research units

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

In the region In Sweden In Europe In NorthAmerica

In Asia Elsewhere

Percenatge of firms

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Don’t know

Discussion and conclusions1. Collaboration with business partners

a/ Customers

•Important R&D partners

•Usually located outside the region- small region/country + niche products- ”borne globals”- need for country-specific adaptations

•Important for small/young firms to have pioneering customers nearby (e.g. Sahlgrenska University Hospital)

b/ Suppliers

•Almost as important as customers (ESI)

•Spurred by increasing ”outsourcing” (esp. medtech)

•Advantageous to have local suppliers (esp. for SMEs) …..but often difficult to find

•Lack of ”critical mass” in the industry: stimulate entry of supplier firms

b/ Suppliers

•Almost as important as customers (ESI)

•Spurred by increasing ”outsourcing” (esp. medtech)

•Advantageous to have local suppliers (esp. for SMEs) …..but often difficult to find

•Lack of ”critical mass” in the industry: stimulate entry of supplier firms

Some policy-implications (business partners)•HC organ. that is open to industry collaboration•Not enough to support collaboration within the region•Need to support internationalisation of SME•Support of local industry should include suppliers

2. Universities

Almost as important as the business partners, but in a different way•Science-based industry•Basic technology (inventions or knowledge)

Regional partners are important•Creation of new firms (USOs)•Cooperation opportunities for established firms

Tacit knowledge need for proximityNatural for USOs, but important to broaden the interface

The Oulo case: tight U-I networking strong cluster

3. Other biomedical firms

Relatively little collaboration between biomedical firms in the region

Specialisation in different technology/product areas

One exception: biomaterials and cell therapy cluster

Concluding remark

Yes, regional collaborations matter in biomedicine – to some extent

The role of regional universitiesEsp. for SMEs

Business partners: regional collaboration is less important

Biomedical industry

Broad definition

Firms involved in development, manufacturing and/or marketing of:

•Pharmaceuticals•Medical devices (incl. aids for disabled)•”Biotech supply” products•Clinical/contract research services

Biomedical industry in Western Sweden

More than 200 biomedical firmsSix large firms: one pharma

five medtech

Three sub-sectors:

Pharma: one giant; few others

Medtech: many companies (large – small)fragmentedcluster in biomaterials (+ cell therapy)

”Biotech supply”: no large companies some small companies

R&D and innovation activities

R&D expenditures: Spend more than 10% on R&D: 60% of the firmsSpend more than 20% on R&D: 38% of the firms

(75% spend less than 10 man-years)

Mainly product development 95% of the firms

Scientific work: 60% of the firms

Radical innovations: 80%Incremental innovations: 80%

75% run 1-3 projects

SA/SUHChalmers

Nobel Biocare

Integration Diagnostics

Brånemark Integration

Cochlear

Integrum

Artimplant PromimicTendera

Biopolymer products

Mölnlycke HC

Vitrolife

Cellartis

Cell Matrix

Astra Tech

Arterion

Arcam

Samba Sensors

Biomaterials and cell therapy cluster