Viva Questions

Front 1

In a sentence or two summarize the thesis?

Back 1

R&D and financial resources and capabilities are germane to the development of life science ventures, and these resources and capabilities develop along a unique set of paths, positions and processes. Driving these paths, positions and processes is an individual or small group of individuals.

Front 2

Summarize your argument?

Back 2

R&D and financial resources and capabilities are germane to the development of life science ventures, and these resources and capabilities develop along a unique set of paths, positions and processes.

The paths, or past decisions and future opportunities is what motivates the development of life science ventures. These paths stem from the opportunity to develop an idea for an innovation or because an idea was presented to the founders – often through university connections or relationships in the industry.

The positions represent the resources of the firm. This study found that the founders are central inputs to both R&D and financial resources and capabilities. Partnerships are also important to supplying resources, and partnership emanate from a number of sources. For example, the founders networks; One unique finding from this study is that important partnerships come from scholarly activity. Journals and conferences act as a intermediary for connecting firms.

The processes represent the routines use to convert their resources into outputs in purstuit of the paths available to them. The findings from the study suggest that sensing and seizing opportunities is an important process. The findings also emphasize the importance of learning and conservation.

Front 3

What are your most important findings?

Back 3

At the highest level the most important contributions are on the depth I provide on how life science ventures develop financial resources and capabilities. From a theoretical standpoint the support I offer to the dynamic capabilities and complementary assets framework.

My most unique and publishable findings can be broken down into five areas:

• First my findings extend Zucker and Darby’s work on star scientists
• Second, my work unearths the importance of scientific scholarship to the development of partnerships in life science ventures.
• Third, this study suggests that it is better for life science ventures to have narrower scope of focus on the innovation that they are pursuing.
• Fourth, my study supports R&D as a CA and puts forth financing capabilities as a possible category of CAs.
• Fifth, the findings suggest that the VC model has changed and is inherently flawed. Moreover, there are alternative models, such as the SBIR grant model that superior to the traditional VC model.

Front 4

Why life science firms?

Back 4

I have practical experience in the field, so this study was driven based on some challenges that I have faced in my career. Moreover, it is an important industry that is driven by innovation, and innovation is an important is my main interest in the study of management. Not to mention that it innovation is a topic of interest to many researchers.

Front 5

What are the key articles that the study draws on?

Back 5

One of the most difficult aspects of this study was finding pieces to position the study off of. There is one or small group of papers that I had to use as a template. From a theoretical standpoint several of Teece and Rothaermel’s papers were highly influential. Most notably, is the Teece, Pisan Shuen (1997) paper that lay out the paths, positions and processes framework. Rothaermel (2001; 2005) also supplied important ideas on examining the CAs needed in the commercialization of biotech innovations.

From a life science standpoint, several of Deeds papers, for example Deeds and Decarolis 2000 where they examine what drives the development of new life science ventures. Several of Colombo and Gille’s papers were similarly influential. In their 2004, 2005, and 2009 papers they examine various aspects of the founders background on the development of life science ventures.

Front 6

Why did you present the life science review first?

Back 6

This was an industry driven study, so I felt that it was important to present the context of the study and then use this to justify the theoretical approach taken to examine the research.

Front 7

How would you define DCs?

Back 7

The ability of a firm to extend, modify and apply its resources and capabilities in the face of rapidely changing environments.

Front 8

Describe the analysis process?

Back 8

This study followed an abductive three step process that developed questions based on the research topics and the literature. In the first two stages a four step analytical process was used to identify themes in the data: 1) identifying repetitions, 2) looking for transitions, 3) identifying similarities and differences and 4) cutting and sorting notable quotes. After each step the data was also analysed for emergent themes. For example, the theme of the broken VC model emerged throughout the analysis. In the third stage a more deductive approach was taken were the main themes were surveyed by the respondents.

Front 9

How are you going to build on this work?

Back 9

I am looking to publish a piece on how innovative life science firms develop R&D and financial resources and capabilities. I am going to present the key empirical results form the study on this topic.

I also look to write a paper on the importance of scholarly scientific activity to networking in life science ventures. One of my most unique findings was how journals and conferences are a way for firms to find and vet partners.

A third piece I am looking to write is on how standout researchers – not necessarily star scientists are driving the development of life science ventures.

In addition, I will be presenting to trade organizations.

Front 10

What journals do you think that you can put this work in?

Back 10

I believe my work has a lot of potential, and I am going to shoot for the stars but aim for the moon.

Research policy
SMJ
Journal of Commercial Biotechnology
Technovation
International Jounral of Biotechnology
Jounral of R&D Management
Industry and Corporate Change

Front 11

What is the LS venture that you are part of?

Back 11

consulting firm that specialises in tech and HR for life science firms?

Front 12

Summarise your research?

Back 12

LS new venture study

Front 13

What are the weaknesses of your study?

Back 13

There are no perfect study in management – this study is no exception.
• Drew on a small subset of life science ventures. This industry is fundamentally different than other industries. Moreover, I drew on a small subset of firms.
• Richness of data got lost in translation- controlled for processes but could not convert all data to findings.
• Dynamic capabilities is not well developed – lack of constructs and measures, which is problematic even for qualitative work. Used RBV to triangulate.
• It is hard to capture data over time. Notwithstanding Pettigrew and others contend researchers can if they factor in the element of time – this study did so with its longitudinal design

Front 14

How did your interview questions reflect your research questions?

Back 14

I developed my questions from the gaps in the literature. I attempted to develop questions that allowed the interviewer to unearth fresh insights. The questions also asked specifics based on the literature and the earlier rounds of interviews.

Front 15

What would you do differently?

Back 15

I would have a more concentrated focus. At the beginning I was trying to look at all resources and capabilities and factor in every variable. After months of spinning my wheels I found that I needed to concentrate my thesis on the resources and capabilities that were clearly the most important in the early growth of life science venture – R&D and finance.

Similarly, I would have started with a smaller group of focus firms. I started with twelve firms, which was far too many firms to really be able to capture great depth.

Other than those two major changes I would not do much else differently. All of the other troubles I ran into were an important part of the learning process.

Front 16

Describe the analysis process?

Back 16

P 126 outlines my analysis process. This study followed Miles and Huberman’s three step data repackaging process. Data was first summarized; a four step analytical process was used to identify themes in the data: 1) identifying repetitions, 2) looking for transitions, 3) identifying similarities and differences and 4) cutting and sorting notable quotes. From this the themes were categorized based on the priori themes and emergent themes. I used RDQA to were recorded and RDQA and analyze the codes from within each case and across cases. From this the data was then repackaged and aggregated in to narrower bounds; R&D, fin and VC. I then took the data and packed it up into paths positions and processes for both R&D and finance. I then tested the data by going back through and created a survey to validate in the findings. In this survey the main themes were pre-coded for each firm and the firms then completed the survey and I subsequently compared the answers to the findings and for any areas with discrepancies I went back to the firms to try to find why there was a discrepancy.

In the final step I compared the data to the literature.

Front 17

Why did you pick these research questions?

Back 17

These questions stemmed from the gaps in the literature as most relevant to my study’s objectives. Moreover, I felt these questions were linked closely enough together that it would allow me to address these in a single PhD study.

Front 18

What have you done that merits a PhD?

Back 18

I have become one of the leading experts on the topic of the formulation key resources and capabilities in life science new ventures. In doing so I have made several contributions to the scholarship and practice of management.

Front 19

What's original about your work? Where is the novelty?

Back 19

Little work has holistically examined the resources and capabilities needed in the development of life science firms. Furthermore, no study of note has used the paths, positions and processes framework to examine a research topic. This ins highly unique in that the Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997) paper that lays this framework out was the most cited paper in management from 2000 to 2010.

Front 20

How could you improve your work?

Back 20

If I had more time and resources I would have multiple researchers fully analyze my data. I had excerpts looked at by topic experts, but for the most part I was the only one that analyzed the data. Second, I would add cases to confirm my findings. Third, I would go into more depth with each firm. If I had more time and resources I would speak with the firms partners and the firms staffs.

Front 21

What are the most original parts of the thesis?

Back 21

The extension of the complementary assets model to include financial capabilities. The idea that scientific scholarship is an important mediator to partnerships. The notion that standout researchers are vital to the growth of life science ventures.

Front 22

What are the most original parts of the thesis?

Back 22

The extension of the complementary assets model to include financial capabilities. The idea that scientific scholarship is an important mediator to partnerships. The notion that standout researchers are vital to the growth of life science ventures.

From life science standpoint the propositions related to the paths, positions and processes. More specifically, the idea that standout etc.

Front 23

How do you think your work takes forward or develops the literature in this field?

Back 23

From a theoretical standpoint my work adds much needed empirical support to the dynamic capabilities and complementary assets frameworks. It also extends the complementary assets frameworks by offering R&D and finance as categories of complementary assets.

Front 24

What is the difference between resources, assets and capabilities? P46 and 47

Back 24

As straight forward as the definitions can be, in practice there is major discrepancy in how these are defined and classified. Resources: stocks of inputs available to the firm
Capabilities are the abilities of the firm to coordinate resources and activities.
Assets are resources and capabilities that can readily get converted to value. This was a term that I had to tiptoe around being that my study drew on both management and finance. The management literature often uses assets interchangeably with resources and capabilities whereas the finance literature refers to assets almost strictly as resources that are readily converted to capital.

Front 25

How did you choose the case firms?

Back 25

Sampling is also a critical issue in case research. Because of very little known on my topic, cases were called for that represent the population. To find such cases I drew on Seewright and Gerring’s (2008) typical case study selection. Accordingly, I selected atypical cases that did not deviate from the population. To ensure this I carefully filtered firms to ensure that they met my requirements and were not drastically different then the firms of the population. The main way I did this is to ensure they did not receive a large amount of upfront investment capital, there was nothing unusual about their management teams, alliances or partnerships.

The total population of innovative new life science ventures is estimated to be around 1500. I choose firms in California and Florida, so that I could gather data from them in multiple rounds of interviews. The filtering resulted in 117 firms, and these were subsequently filtered to 12 and then 6 firms.

Front 26

Did you have choices to make, for example, in choosing the data collection methods, or in analysing
the data? Can you justify what you did?

Back 26

I had several choices; what type of study, the sample to use and the analysis. The first was tough as my preference was to use a deductive methodology, but after trying to develop a positivist study I found the constructs and measures for my topic simply were not there. For this reason a more inductive paradigm was called for. There are several methods that could be used….

Front 27

How do your findings relate to the critical literature in this field of studies?

Back 27

Add empirical work to the dynamic capabilities framework, extend the complementary assets.
Add to Deeds, Decarlois, Coombs and others that have looked at the development of life science firms.

Front 28

Is it possible to draw a general rule from your small number of observations?

Back 28

Yes. The sample was meticuosly chosen, and the findings were drawn compared to the literature, where they showed to extend and be in line with similar past research.

Front 29

How have you evaluated your work?

Back 29

Yes. First, by comparing it to the literature where it showed to concur and extend the current knowledge base. Second, through presentation at conferences and the publication of three pieces in scholarly journals. Third, through the application of my findings to my business. Specifically we looked at creating a cutting edge information system that would take significant R&D to develop, but because of my research I convinced my firm to develop a system with a more narrower scope. I took this from one of my key findings that R&D projects with a wider scope of focus stretch resources and ….

Front 30

Why was the Jones Wheeler interview schedule appropriate to adopt for your study?

Back 30

This is a tested interview schedule that was looking at the resources and capabilities needed in the internationalization of life science firms. Because of its focus on resources and capabilities I thought it was a good template to adapt. I particularly liked the open ended and close ended questions.
How did you make sure to capture appropriate information during the interview?
suggest taking field notes, listening for key terms and asking clarifying questions throughout. The present study followed this advice. Furthermore, at the end of the session the interviewer presented the respondent key points taken from the interview to verify (Yin, 1983).

Front 31

How did you triangulate the findings?

Back 31

Multiple sources of data, closely related is for most cases multiple informants, and the validation survey that I conducted with the key informants of each firm at the end of the study

Front 32

Which of your research questions received the most support?

Back 32

Q1) How does an innovation affect the development of firms?
1a) Does the source of an innovation affect the development of R&D and financial resources and capabilities?
2a) Does the type of innovation affect the development of R&D and financial resources and capabilities?
Q4) Are highly trained, skilled and experienced individuals driving the development of R&D and financial resources and capabilities?
Q6) How are R&D and financial resources integral to life science ventures?
6a) How closely linked are R&D and financial resources and capabilities?
6b) Do R&D and financial resources co-evolve?