核心和非核心结构【外文翻译】.doc

1、 外文翻译 原文 Core vs. Non-Core Framework Material Source:http:/ Author: Neil Mac Allister, Richard Evans, and Katherine Wallace Across the pharmaceutical industry, dramatic and durable changes to the operating environment are calling for modifications to companies strategies and structures. The industry

2、 is facing a period of eroding pricing power, falling growth in the consumption of branded drugs, and tighter regulatory standards. As a consequence, companies are finding that revenue growth is becoming both slower and more volatile, and that returns on R as they fade, revenue growth defaults to or

3、 at least toward the remaining variables: population growth and product mix. Population growth is too small to matter, leaving mix as the dominant variable. Product mix is extremely volatile from period to period, consisting of significant gains (i.e. new products) and significant losses (i.e. paten

4、t expiry) interspersed at uneven intervals. Absent the buffers of real pricing and per-capita volume gains, it follows that future revenue patterns contain both ups and downs; unless cost structures become more flexible, periods of revenue contraction will result in outright earnings losses. Competi

5、tive differentiation must consider whether ownership or control of the activity is important for competitive and/or strategic reasons, and whether or not the company is able to perform the activities at such a level that it provides them with a point of differentiation against their competitors. The

6、 availability of sourcing options needs to examine whether or not there are ample vendors performing the activity that can deliver world-class quality at a cost-effective price. Core activities Enable the overarching business strategy Are key components of the company s value proposition Are a major

7、 source of durable competitive advantage (e.g.intellectual capital) Protect intellectual property Have internal capabilities that cannot be matched or exceeded by outside vendors or other partners Non-core activities Can be pushed outside of pharma to improve flexibility within cost structure Are ge

8、neral “ supportive” activities to the pharma value proposition Can be conducted by third parties and match or exceed internal quality/economics Determining core and non-core activities for your company will depend upon the benefits of outsourcing or partnerships versus keeping the function in-house

9、and the strategic importance of the function relative to your company. The importance and value of these two dimensions will differ depending upon the product stage. For example, elements of screening in discovery that have low risk of IP exposure may be considered non-core, while aspects of lead op

10、timization in development involving high risks of IP exposure are likely to be considered core activities. We have broken R some companies may view certain activities as generic skills where others see a core strategic advantage. Once the core vs. non-core determination has been made, companies must

11、 assess the optimal outsourcing approach for non-core activities. We have divided outsourcing approaches into two categories, functional and integrated, based on the degree of integration necessary between the sponsor and the vendor. As a general rule, if a core activity must be outsourced for some

12、reason, integration with vendors is essential. For non-core activities, a functional approach is usually best. Integrated outsourcing arrangements would focus on accelerated decision making and minimizing time to proof of concept. Vendors would work with integrated workflows and pre-established stan

13、dard operating procedures (SOPs), with IT decision support. In many cases, integrated outsourcing calls for a component of risk sharing in the compound s success, and an economic model should be established in which there is an emphasis on quality, not quantity, and it is in the interest of the vend

14、or to “ kill” compounds as soon as they begin showing unfavorable results. Clinical data management has been one area of development activity that is routinely outsourced and has been increasingly off-shored. As a very basic example of the application of the core/non-core decision process, we have u

15、sed the example of the partnership between Accenture and Wyeth to illustrate the use of our framework. To begin, from the company perspective, data management is not a differentiating activity. It does not provide a point of competitive advantage over a competitor, and it is unlikely that any one co

16、mpany possesses a leadership position in this area. As a result, in outsourcing there is very little executional or IP risk associated with outsourcing data management. In terms of capacity, many companies have been moving away from holding data management capabilities in-house over the last decade,

17、 so many may not even have internal resources. Additionally, there are no key relationships associated with the data management function. From a company situation standpoint, all variables point toward data management being a non-core activity. The vendor situation for data management points toward

18、the same conclusion. Sophisticated vendor environments already exist for conducting data management, particularly in off-shore communities. Because of the ample supply of vendors, quality standards are high and generally well trusted, and competition has lowered prices to a very attractive level. Wi

19、th both situations pointing toward outsourcing, there is very little by way of company situation that would compel a pharmaceutical company to keep data management activities in-house. Below we have profiled an example of Wyeth s shifting of data management to an outsource partner and the impact the

20、 relationship has had. Wyeth and Accenture formed a deal in which Wyeth gave its entire data management operation to Accenture over a 10-year contact. In doing so, half of Wyeth s 300 data management positions were eliminated, and the remaining employees were transferred to Accenture for employment.

21、 The more mundane data management tasks, such as data entry, would be sent offshore to India to make use of Accenture s specialized facilities. In order to get the contract, Accenture had to accept a risk-sharing arrangement and meet highly specific performance criteria all while cutting Wyeth s dat

22、a management costs by 50%. The result was a deal that provides significant cost savings for Wyeth, shifting fixed costs to variable costs while also tapping into new capabilities through Accenture s service delivery center in India. New efficiencies can also be reached; functions that would have tak

23、en Wyeth more than 100 days must be reduced to about 20 days under the deal, or Accenture will have to pay Wyeth. In contrast to the data management example, program management activities can be examined as an extreme illustration of an activity that is core and must be kept in-house. As a result, w

24、e do not have a case studied to apply to this framework because we are not aware of outsourced program management arrangements. While specific company situations will vary, all companies will find a very high executional and IP risk associated with outsourcing the program management function. Progra

25、m management is one of the remaining areas where companies can hold a significant leadership advantage over competitors and continue to build internal know-how (intellectual capital). Additionally, it is critical that internal program management teams develop and leverage key relationships along the

26、 value chain. The vendor situation further reinforces that program management remains in-house. While program management functions may be a portion of outsourcing specific activities, vendors solely dedicated to program management do not readily exist. Even if an extreme company situation dictated t

27、hat program management activity be outsourced, a fully integrated outsourcing approach would be necessary. This arrangement would require oversight from the pharma company and would therefore result in significant overlap of responsibilities. Across the industry s R in general the economic value of

28、flexibility gains increases toward the sell end of the continuum while IP concerns lessen. Means for reducing revenue volatility clearly exist, including co-development of products and/or sharing of commercial rights/returns with commercial partners, and expansion of effective portfolio size in part

29、nership with passive investors. Whether such volatility gains are worth the associated costs can and should be analyzed. Determining a companys degrees of freedom and how they may be leveraged is a two-step process. First, this general framework of core vs. non-core needs to be fine-tuned by persons

30、 having greater proximity to each component of the value chain (in general), and to the company s business circumstances and organizational status (in particular). Second, available degrees of freedom (i.e. owned non-core functions) should be prioritized according to likely gains, associated risks,

31、and the extent to which well-developed external platforms for performing these functions exist. 译文 核心和非核心结构 资料来源： http:/ core-vs-noncore-framework 作者： 尼尔麦克利斯特，理查德埃文斯，凯瑟琳沃利斯 在整 个制药行业，戏剧性和持续性的对于经营环境的改变，正在呼吁对公司的战略和结构的修改。这个行业正面临定价权被侵蚀时期，缓慢增长的药品消费，和更严格的监管标准。因此，公司发现收入增长更加缓慢和不稳定，研发投入所带来的收入低于资本成本。我们建议改变当前的商

32、业模式，包括更小，更高效，更灵活的成本结构，以及努力减轻收入增长的波动变化。我们在这篇文章的目的是要应用分析框来分析制药公司不断发展的业务模式。 制药业在一个日益不利的政治，经济和监管环境中运行，主要是因为公众的消极想法，医药费的上涨，增加涉及政府的的购买，赔偿以 及制药市场的认可。这个行业正承受着所带来的压力，它的结构反映这过去而不是当前和将来的情况，特别是成本居高不下和不灵活的情况 下。 为了估计较长周期内盈利能力，我们比较一年到十年的研发支出净所得的，我们能够所测量的利润率一直在下降。表面利润行业没有高于资本成本。对于商业利益的是利润必须超过资本成本。在制药，这一差距被研发投入产生的增长

33、效益或者是减少行业创新的商业化拉大。 我们也看到收入增长放缓，变得更加动荡，包括经济增长和收缩的穿插时期。随着定价能力和人均品牌效应减弱，收入增长放缓。历史上看，真正的定价能力和人 均量稳步增长，当行业需要稳定增长时，可预测的对于总体收入增长以及更多的定价权利的贡献可以被适用，随着效用的减弱，收入增长默认为收入增长为，至少对于其余的变量：人口增长和产品组合。人口增长是太微不足道了，只有产品组合作为主导变量。产品组合常常是是极不稳定的，包括重大的收益（即新产品）和重大损失（即专利到期）穿插在在不均匀的间隔中。脱离真正价格和人均量的收益的缓冲，行业延续着的未来收益形式包括收益的起伏：除非成本结构变

34、得更加灵活，收入收缩时期会造成彻底的收入损失。 差异化竞争必须考虑是否拥有或控制有关活动，这对 于竞争和战略的思考是非常重要的，以及该公司是否能够在这样一种对于竞争者提供给他们差别化程度下执行这样的活动，它提供了对他们的竞争对手区别点他们的活动。资源选择的可用性需要检查是否有最足够的商人兜售低成本价格，高质量的产品 。 核心活动 是执行 总体经营战略 是公司的价值主张的核心构成 是一种持久的竞争优势（例如，智力资本）的主要来源 保护知识产权 不能被外部供应商货合作伙伴 匹配 和超越的内部能力 非核心活动 可以被外部制药产业推动来提高在成本结构下的灵活性 对制药产业价值主张总体上相同的 可以由第

35、三方 执行 和 达到或超过 内部品质 /经济因素 确定公司核心和非核心活动将取决于外包或合作的利益对与保持内部功能和功能相对于公司的战略重要性。这两个方面重要性和价值将根据产品的不同阶段而有所不同。例如，低风险的 IP泄露可能被视为非核心，而 在发展方面的优化涉及高风险的 IP泄露可能被视为核心活动。 我们将研发分为四个阶段：基础研究，发现，临床前和发展。通过检查每一个阶段都内的主要活动，核心或非核心可根据战略环境的基本每个元素来决定。在某些情况下，这些活动可能是“擦边球” - 这只是意味着决定对于每个公司都有改变，这取决于公司的能力，以及战略方向。 只有当基础研究提供了对公司的分化点时作为核

36、心功能。例如，在治疗领域中，很少有公司研究一种机制，目标识别和确认活动数量有限，可能是一个区别点。除此之外，该活动被认为是非核心。在具有多个多家公司竞争和机制的治疗领域中，改变方向来寻找和评价指标而不是生成 IP是非常符合公司利益的。围绕在不同的机制研究可能存在于学术界，但越来越多的商业机构正在开发平台来进行这些活动 - 提供了一个有能力的供应商和合作伙伴等。 发现工作应考虑外包，因为他们容易系统化 - 在某些情况下 - 实现自动化。对于已经建立内部发现能力的公司 - 例如，高通将筛选 - 成本效益和质量标准在进行外包选择时必须进行评估。 临床前的活动正越来越多地外包，以便采取专门的建模功能。

37、在临床前开发阶段组织收集到的信息将继续留在公司内部，而实际生成的观点将移动到外包。对于临床前工作的供应商环境，特别是在专业领域迅速成熟，使得制药公司通过这些领域的外包利用新的效能。 在临床发展，战略，发展规划中，管理职能应始终保留在公司内部。在所有的开发活动，应考虑到两个规则：对关键关系的保护和外包的积极管理。另一个影响发展外包的因素是公司的理念。这应该被视为当好检查“擦边球”活动时，一些公司可能会认为在别人视为活动的核心战略优势时的某些共通能力。 一旦核心对非核心的决定已经确定，企业必须评估非核心活动外包的最佳方法。我们以赞助商和供应商的必要联系程度为基础，把外包途径分为两种类型，功能化与一

38、体化。作为一般规则，如果一个核心活动必须出于某种原因外包，与供应商整合是必要的。对于非核心业务，功能化的方法通常是最好的。 综合外包安排将重点放在加快决策和减少时间概念验证。供应商将在整合的工作流程和预先制定的标准作业程序（ SOP）， IT决策支持下工作。在许多情况下，综合外包需要在混合的成功 中拥有风险分担的能力，以及经济模式应建立在一个重视质量而不是数量， “消灭”这些化合物在它们展示不利的结果时候是符合供应商的利益的。 临床数据管理已经成为常规外包的发展活动的一个区域，并已越来越多地转移到海外。作为核心 /非核心决策过程中的应用非常简单的例子，我们已经使用了埃森哲和惠氏之间的伙伴关系的

39、例子来说明我们的框架。 首先，从公司的角度来看，数据管理是不是一个与众不同的活动。它不提供超过竞争对手的竞争优势点，不可能任何一家公司在这一领域具有领导地位。因此，在外包行业中，很少有执行人员或 IP外包风险管理相 关的数据。在容量方面，在过去的几十年内，许多公司已经将持有的内部的数据管理能力转移出去，所以很多公司甚至没有内部资源。此外，公司与数据管理功能没有重要的联系。从公司情况的角度来看，所有对于数据管理的可变点不是核心活动。 供应商的数据管理点得出相同的结论。对于执行数据管理复杂的供应商环境中已经存在，特别是海外。由于供应商供应充足，质量标准高，总体信誉好，竞争已降低到一个非常有吸引力的

40、价格水平。 随着这两种情况都针对外包，几乎没有公司状况会迫使制药公司将数据管理活动放在内部。下面我们异形一惠氏的数据管理转变的例 子，一个外包合作伙伴的关系和产生的影响。 惠氏和埃森哲达成了协议，就是惠氏在 10年里把整个数据管理操作交给埃森哲。在这样做时，惠氏公司管理数据的 300个职位有一半减少，剩下的员工就业转移给埃森哲。平凡的数据管理任务，如数据录入，将被派往海外印度利用埃森哲的专门设施。为了得到合同，埃森哲不得不接受一个风险分担安排，满足特定的高性能标准，同时降低了 50%惠氏的数据管理成本。 其结果是，它为惠氏节省大量成本，固定成本转变为可变成本，同时还通过在印度的埃森哲服务交付中

41、心开发新的功能。新的效率也可以达到，这些应用将这 项交易花费惠氏 100天减少到 20天 ，否则埃森哲将要赔付惠氏。 与数据管理的例子相比，项目管理活动能够被视为一项活动的极端例证就是核心必须保留在公司内部。因此，我们没有案例来研究来应用到这个结构中因为我们没有意识到外包项目管理安排。 虽然具体公司的情况会有所不同，所有的公司会发现非常高的执行和知识产权风险与外包计划管理功能有关。项目管理是公司剩余的区域之一，它可以拥有超过竞争对手的重要领导优势，而后继续致力于构建一个内部技术（智力资本）。此外，最为重要的是内部程序管理团队提高和影响着价值链关系。 供应商的状况 进一步强化公司内部计划管理。而

42、项目管理功能可能是特定业务外包的一部分，供应商主要致力于项目管理不是轻易的存在。即使一些大公司状况决定了项目管理活动需要外包，一个完全集成的外包途径是必要的。这项安排将需要制药公司的监督，因此将导致责任的过分重叠。 整个行业的 R&D功能，抽头自由度使成本基础更加灵活而存在。对灵活性的收益机会，必须平衡知识产权和组织知识风险，一般来说灵活的经济收益增加了连续年底增加销售的经济价值的销售并减轻了对知识产权的担忧。减少收入波动性方法早起已存在，包括共同开发产品和 /或与合作伙伴共享商业 权利 /利润，以及在合作中与被动的投资者合作有效投资组合规模的扩大。这种波动性的收益是否值得的相关费用可以而且应该加以分析。 确定公司自由度，以及他们如何利用公司的度是一个两步走过程。首先，这种核心与非核心需求的总体框架需要被具有更大的接近的价值链（一般）组成人员来调整，（尤其是）对本公司的业务情况和组织状况。第二，可利用的自由度（即自有非核心功能）应根据可能的收益，风险，以及发展良好的于执行这些存在的功能外部平用的程度来优化。