Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Favoured by genetic engineering breakthroughs, a new type of firm has emerged in the pharmaceutical industry. New Biotechnology Firms (NBFs) are 'bridging institutions', accelerating the commercialisation of science from academia to the pharmaceutical market and facilitating technological incursions into drug development or therapeutic paths yet unexplored. As such, they have raised industrial and political interest around the world. Successes can be outstanding and some countries seem to offer much more favourable environments than others. Countries' performances are usually benchmarked against their provision of favourable resources and institutions, but this article takes an alternative route by considering the entrepreneurial side of NBF as a major factor in their emergence. 'Entrepreneur biographies' and firm creation experience were collected in two comparable bioclusters in France (Evry) and Japan (Kobe), on 11 Japanese and French drug development NBFs. The result shows an interesting variation in backgrounds and motivations, in that almost all our French entrepreneurs came from public research institutes, whereas a large share of the Japanese entrepreneurs came from large pharmaceutical companies. This finding questions the universal nature of entrepreneurship in biopharmaceutical firms and invites consideration for a model of entrepreneurship that is socially embedded in a country's specific institutional and historical factors. ; Favorisée par les avancées du génie génétique, un nouveau type d'entreprises est apparue dans l'industrie pharmaceutique. Nouvelles entreprises de biotechnologie (CNB) sont des «institutions de transfert » pour accélérer la commercialisation de la science née à l'université sur le marché pharmaceutique et pour faciliter l'introduction technologique dans le développement de médicaments ou l'apparition des pistes thérapeutiques non encore explorées. Comme telles, elles ont soulevé un intérêt industriel et politique à travers le monde. Leur succès peuvent être dus aux environnements plus favorables que certains pays semblent offrir plus que d'autres. Les performances des pays en la matière sont habituellement comparés à leur disposition des ressources et des institutions favorables. Mais cet article prend une route alternative en examinant le côté entrepreneurial de la CNB comme un facteur majeur dans leur émergence. Biographies des entrepreneurs et de l'expérience de création d'entreprises ont été recueillies dans deux bio-clusters comparables en France (Evry) et le Japon (Kobe), avec les 11 japonais et français CNB spécialisées en développement de médicaments. Le résultat montre une variation intéressante dans ces deux pays; presque tous nos entrepreneurs français sont venus des instituts de recherche publique, tandis qu'une part importante des entrepreneurs japonais vient de grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques. Ce constat questionne sur le caractère universel de l'esprit d'entreprise dans les sociétés bio-pharmaceutiques et invite à considérer des modèles d'entrepreneuriat qui sont imprégnés, dans chaque pays, des facteurs institutionnels et historiques spécifiques.

International audience ; Favoured by genetic engineering breakthroughs, a new type of firm has emerged in the pharmaceutical industry. New Biotechnology Firms (NBFs) are 'bridging institutions', accelerating the commercialisation of science from academia to the pharmaceutical market and facilitating technological incursions into drug development or therapeutic paths yet unexplored. As such, they have raised industrial and political interest around the world. Successes can be outstanding and some countries seem to offer much more favourable environments than others. Countries' performances are usually benchmarked against their provision of favourable resources and institutions, but this article takes an alternative route by considering the entrepreneurial side of NBF as a major factor in their emergence. 'Entrepreneur biographies' and firm creation experience were collected in two comparable bioclusters in France (Evry) and Japan (Kobe), on 11 Japanese and French drug development NBFs. The result shows an interesting variation in backgrounds and motivations, in that almost all our French entrepreneurs came from public research institutes, whereas a large share of the Japanese entrepreneurs came from large pharmaceutical companies. This finding questions the universal nature of entrepreneurship in biopharmaceutical firms and invites consideration for a model of entrepreneurship that is socially embedded in a country's specific institutional and historical factors. ; Favorisée par les avancées du génie génétique, un nouveau type d'entreprises est apparue dans l'industrie pharmaceutique. Nouvelles entreprises de biotechnologie (CNB) sont des «institutions de transfert » pour accélérer la commercialisation de la science née à l'université sur le marché pharmaceutique et pour faciliter l'introduction technologique dans le développement de médicaments ou l'apparition des pistes thérapeutiques non encore explorées. Comme telles, elles ont soulevé un intérêt industriel et politique à travers le monde. Leur succès peuvent être dus aux environnements plus favorables que certains pays semblent offrir plus que d'autres. Les performances des pays en la matière sont habituellement comparés à leur disposition des ressources et des institutions favorables. Mais cet article prend une route alternative en examinant le côté entrepreneurial de la CNB comme un facteur majeur dans leur émergence. Biographies des entrepreneurs et de l'expérience de création d'entreprises ont été recueillies dans deux bio-clusters comparables en France (Evry) et le Japon (Kobe), avec les 11 japonais et français CNB spécialisées en développement de médicaments. Le résultat montre une variation intéressante dans ces deux pays; presque tous nos entrepreneurs français sont venus des instituts de recherche publique, tandis qu'une part importante des entrepreneurs japonais vient de grandes sociétés pharmaceutiques. Ce constat questionne sur le caractère universel de l'esprit d'entreprise dans les sociétés bio-pharmaceutiques et invite à considérer des modèles d'entrepreneuriat qui sont imprégnés, dans chaque pays, des facteurs institutionnels et historiques spécifiques.

International audience ; Favoured by genetic engineering breakthroughs, a new type of firm has emerged in the pharmaceutical industry. New Biotechnology Firms (NBFs) are 'bridging institutions', accelerating the commercialisation of science from academia to the pharmaceutical market and facilitating technological incursions into drug development or therapeutic paths yet unexplored. As such, they have raised industrial and political interest around the world. Successes can be outstanding and some countries seem to offer much more favourable environments than others. Countries' performances are usually benchmarked against their provision of favourable resources and institutions, but this article takes an alternative route by considering the entrepreneurial side of NBF as a major factor in their emergence. 'Entrepreneur biographies' and firm creation experience were collected in two comparable bioclusters in France (Evry) and Japan (Kobe), on 11 Japanese and French drug development NBFs. The result shows an interesting variation in backgrounds and motivations, in that almost all our French entrepreneurs came from public research institutes, whereas a large share of the Japanese entrepreneurs came from large pharmaceutical companies. This finding questions the universal nature of entrepreneurship in biopharmaceutical firms and invites consideration for a model of entrepreneurship that is socially embedded in a country's specific institutional and historical factors. ; Favorisée par les avancées du génie génétique, un nouveau type d'entreprises est apparue dans l'industrie pharmaceutique. Nouvelles entreprises de biotechnologie (CNB) sont des «institutions de transfert » pour accélérer la commercialisation de la science née à l'université sur le marché pharmaceutique et pour faciliter l'introduction technologique dans le développement de médicaments ou l'apparition des pistes thérapeutiques non encore explorées. Comme telles, elles ont soulevé un intérêt industriel et politique à travers le monde. Leur succès peuvent ...

This paper studies the performativity of smart mobility expectations in envisioning urban futures. Smart mobility, or ICT-enabled transport services, are increasingly considered a necessary ingredient for sustainability transitions in cities. Expectations of smart mobility's contribution to such a transition are constituted by a strong belief in the transformative potential of data collection and use. These knowledge claims embedded in smart mobility expectations tend to be unchallenged, yet contribute to a particular future vision of urban mobility. Our empirical analysis, which draws on two empirical smart cycling case studies in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and Bordeaux, France, underlines the politics of such smart knowledge claims in two smart cycling projects and identifies distinct processes as to how such claims may shape and structure mobility futures. We observe intimate entanglements between what is being developed in terms of technologies and services; and the societal needs that the projects' expectations promise to fulfil. At the same time, we witness a disentanglement of these interconnected knowledge claims when projects unfold, leaving the promise of (un)achieved societal benefits out of view. Indeed, smart knowledge claims carried strong inherent legitimacy in the cases studied, thereby risking to exclude non-smart alternatives.

This paper studies the performativity of smart mobility expectations in envisioning urban futures. Smart mobility, or ICT-enabled transport services, are increasingly considered a necessary ingredient for sustainability transitions in cities. Expectations of smart mobility's contribution to such a transition are constituted by a strong belief in the transformative potential of data collection and use. These knowledge claims embedded in smart mobility expectations tend to be unchallenged, yet contribute to a particular future vision of urban mobility. Our empirical analysis, which draws on two empirical smart cycling case studies in Utrecht, the Netherlands, and Bordeaux, France, underlines the politics of such smart knowledge claims in two smart cycling projects and identifies distinct processes as to how such claims may shape and structure mobility futures. We observe intimate entanglements between what is being developed in terms of technologies and services; and the societal needs that the projects' expectations promise to fulfil. At the same time, we witness a disentanglement of these interconnected knowledge claims when projects unfold, leaving the promise of (un)achieved societal benefits out of view. Indeed, smart knowledge claims carried strong inherent legitimacy in the cases studied, thereby risking to exclude non-smart alternatives.

This project concerns the management of especially risky and uncertain forms of innovation. More precisely, it concentrates on architectural or radical innovations which by their nature challenge existing technological conventions, regulatory frameworks, and established relations between consumers and producers. Public and private sector managers of research and development projects have ready access to a range of tools and techniques with which to inform and evaluate decisions about the relative merits of competing projects and proposals. The trouble is that conventional management methods assume the stability of technological, regulatory and market environments. As a result, they are of limited value when these dimensions are uncertain. The core problem is this: what can managers do to enhance societal robustness (and hence the chances of social and political success) when dealing with "architectural" innovation. In response, we devised a feasibility study through which to develop and test a new kit of tools for use in such situations. The tool kit, informed by literature reviews in the sociology of innovation, evolutionary economics, and management and organisational science, helps managers better understand the history and present positioning of their project and determine appropriate next steps to promote and enhance its social viability. Still in the early stages of development, the SOCROBUST tool kit has been prepared for use in a consultancy style interaction involving two parties: a SOCROBUST assessor and the project manager. It consists of four steps and ten tools, many of which have been designed from scratch. The basic sequence is as follows. The initial step is to describe the project from different angles: first a narrative of events to date; second a mapping of the cast of actors currently implicated in the project; and third a detailing of key events or turning points along the way. Having established a picture of the past, the next challenge is to imagine and describe a future world in which the project has succeeded and its goals have been achieved. This future working world is represented in different ways: via a revised mapping of the actors who will be involved and a more precise specification of anticipated relations between them. The second step is to look back over this descriptive material and identify the key changes which will have to take place if the gap between the present and the future working world is to be closed. The third step homes in on these key changes but from a new perspective. The purpose here is to put the key changes in context, to check on their viability given events in the world beyond the project, and to thereby assess and evaluate the project s present positioning and the key assumptions on which it depends. Having made this assessment, the final step is one of identifying plausible and relevant next steps and of identifying those on which the project manager can act. This method has been tested on five on-going cases. In all of these it proved to be of practical value for the project managers involved, leading some to revise their views of the project in question and inspiring others to take different actions as a result. Organised as a method for periodically checking, assessing and evaluating societal robustness, SOCROBUST offers a way of managing what have hitherto been inherently unmanageable processes of uncertain innovation. The feasibility study has demonstrated what promises to be of the lasting value of the SOCROBUST approach. Further work is required to explore the possibility of producing a self-administered version — that is of designing a SOCROBUST process which project managers could follow on their own — and of testing the method on a complete portfolio of current projects.