著者

Kenichi Kuwashima

出版者

Global Business Research Center

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

pp.0180314a, (Released:2018-06-01)

参考文献数

27

被引用文献数

12

---

From the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, major institutional reform was undertaken in Japan to promote university–industry collaboration. The term “university–industry collaboration” appeared frequently in the media and became a fad. However, this did not last long, and it peaked in 2003. University–industry collaboration entered the spotlight again after 2010, when “open innovation” (Chesbrough, 2003) became popular in Japan. At that time, a new type of university–industry collaboration emerged. University–industry collaboration in Japan has traditionally taken the form of “small-scale, short-term, individual” contracts. In contrast, this new type of collaboration features “large-scale, long-term, comprehensive” contracts.

著者

Kenichi Kuwashima

出版者

Global Business Research Center

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.17, no.3, pp.95-108, 2018-06-15 (Released:2018-06-15)

参考文献数

27

被引用文献数

12

---

From the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, major institutional reform was undertaken in Japan to promote university–industry collaboration. The term “university–industry collaboration” appeared frequently in the media and became a fad. However, this did not last long, and it peaked in 2003. University–industry collaboration entered the spotlight again after 2010, when “open innovation” (Chesbrough, 2003) became popular in Japan. At that time, a new type of university–industry collaboration emerged. University–industry collaboration in Japan has traditionally taken the form of “small-scale, short-term, individual” contracts. In contrast, this new type of collaboration features “large-scale, long-term, comprehensive” contracts.

著者

Kenichi Kuwashima Nobuyuki Inamizu Nobuo Takahashi

出版者

Global Business Research Center

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

pp.0200621a, (Released:2020-08-03)

参考文献数

42

被引用文献数

5

---

The concept of ambidexterity and particularly the concept of exploitation are ambiguous. March (1991), a study that became the theoretical basis for several research studies, asserted that exploitation has a trade-off relationship with exploration including innovation, and on the basis of this aspect, Levinthal and March (1993) proposed the myopia of learning. Nevertheless, Levinthal later modeled exploitation that can be called as innovation. Some argued that exploration and exploitation are bipolar on one axis, and some argued that they are two orthogonal axes. In this study, we proposed using Lévi-Strauss’ “bricolage” instead of “exploitation.” This bricolage is a concept of making do with the tools and materials at hand (performing innovation), and bricolage and exploration are used together with ambidexterity being the normal form. We examine this aspect by using Japan’s response to the current Coronavirus disease pandemic as an example.

著者

Kenichi Kuwashima

出版者

Global Business Research Center

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

pp.0200422a, (Released:2020-06-05)

参考文献数

30

被引用文献数

3

---

Large-scale university–industry collaborations that are worth some 10 billion yen and run for 10 years have begun to appear in Japan since the mid-2010s. This paper focuses on the drug development project being conducted by Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. and Osaka University, which is a pioneering case of this kind of collaboration, and explores the background of how this project came to be. For the companies involved in university–industry collaborations, the most important point for consideration is generally whether or not they will achieve results (from the university’s contributions) that are sufficient to justify their investment. For Chugai Pharmaceutical, the deciding factor in making its 10-billion-yen investment was that Osaka University had been selected for the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and had built up research capabilities to make a sufficient contribution to Chugai. In that sense, we could say that this collaboration came into being because of the government’s support in building the innovation base and because of switching over from government sponsorship to corporate sponsorship after the operation of the base was on track. This so-called government-support-based, large-scale university–industry collaboration is a potential role model for university–industry collaborations in the future.

著者

Kenichi Kuwashima

出版者

Global Business Research Center

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.18, no.2, pp.51-63, 2019-04-15 (Released:2019-04-15)

参考文献数

22

被引用文献数

3

---

The open innovation proposed by Chesbrough (2003a) had a heavy impact on practical business, and not just academia. However, the definition of open innovation is broad and ambiguous, with Chesbrough himself not providing a clear, specific example of open innovation practice (OIP). Thus, practitioners interpret it in many ways. Accordingly, to accurately measure the impact of open innovation, OIP must be classified into several types. This paper proposes two methods for classification. The first is whether the OIP of Chesbrough and that of the practitioner are aligned. From this perspective, OIP can be categorized in three ways: (a) what both Chesbrough and the practitioner call OIP; (b) what Chesbrough calls OIP, but not the practitioner; and (c) what a practitioner calls OIP but not Chesbrough. (a) can be clearly evaluated as the impact of open innovation, while more attention is required when interpreting (b) and (c). Second is the differentiation of whether activities that are currently implemented as OIP were started (i) before or (ii) after Chesbrough (2003a). (ii) can be seen as the impact of open innovation, though (i) is nothing more than changing the name of something that was previously just a “practice” into “OIP.” If (i) is included in the impact of open innovation, there is a risk of exaggerating the assessment of open innovation.

著者

Kenichi KUWASHIMA

出版者

グローバルビジネスリサーチセンター・東京大学MERC

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

pp.0160224a, (Released:2016-05-11)

参考文献数

19

被引用文献数

1 4

---

In pharmaceutical research and development of drugs, discovering new drugs from a large number of potential alternatives (chemical compounds), which are theoretically as many as 1060, is an important challenge. Here the new-drug discovery process was explored through a case study on Rozerem from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Although the recent mainstream approach is to generate and test a large number of alternatives using automation technologies, Rozerem was discovered through exploration of a small number of alternatives with rational chemical compound design, based on researchers’ experience and knowledge.

著者

Kenichi KUWASHIMA

出版者

グローバルビジネスリサーチセンター・東京大学MERC

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.14, no.3, pp.161-170, 2015-06-15 (Released:2015-06-15)

参考文献数

27

被引用文献数

2 7

---

The development of pharmaceuticals is an extraordinarily unique process. However, the aspects that are unique in comparison with other industries have never been clearly explained, either academically or practically. Clinical trials are an emblem of the uniqueness of pharmaceutical development; however, using industry-specific ideas and vocabulary do not enable cross-industry comparisons. This paper analyzes the product development process of pharmaceuticals using a problem-solving model that can be applied to comparisons across industries, and organizes the characteristics as well as effective management techniques. From the problem-solving perspective, the pharmaceutical development is unique because it requires the generation of numerous alternative solutions and complex testing. There exist products or industries that share one of these two characteristics, but only a few products or industries share both the characteristics. These characteristics closely relate to product development management of pharmaceuticals. In other words, considering the cost of product development, it is difficult to simultaneously create many alternatives and conduct complicated tests. Therefore, pharmaceutical companies focus on creating many alternatives in the upstream development process, and then testing in the downstream process, responding to this problem by balancing between the two characteristics and switching at the appropriate time. Determining the timing of this switch is one of the most important management techniques that impacts the performance of pharmaceutical development.

著者

Kenichi KUWASHIMA

出版者

グローバルビジネスリサーチセンター・東京大学MERC

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.13, no.4, pp.215-230, 2014-08-15 (Released:2014-08-15)

参考文献数

22

被引用文献数

2 5

---

When explaining organizational decision making, there is often an implicit assumption that an organization makes decisions based on rational principles. However, there are situations in which rationality cannot explain all phenomena. Moreover, even a single organizational decision can be subject to heterogeneous interpretations depending on the model used in an analysis. This paper examines the significance of the models of organizational decision making as an analytical framework by referencing classic studies by Allison (1971) and Lynn (1982). Allison (1971) and Lynn (1982) use multiple models to explain organizational decision making in an effective manner. However, the method in which they use these models differs. Allison (1971) analyzes the Cuban Missile Crisis using three models, and provides three different interpretations concerning decisions made by the U.S. and Soviet Union. In other words, Allison uses more than one model to analyze a single phenomenon to explain the event from different perspectives. On the other hand, Lynn (1892), who explains the decision-making process of Japanese and U.S. steelmakers by analyzing their adoption of new technology, chooses a single model for each company. In providing an analysis, Lynn compares several models and selects the one that is likely to have the most explanatory power. To provide an analysis of organizational decision making in an effective manner, it is necessary to remember the importance of models as an analytical framework and then decide whether to adopt Allison's method (the use of multiple models that provide explanations from several perspectives) or Lynn's method (an explanation using the most optimal model). It is important to decide which method to use based on the purpose of the analysis.

著者

Kenichi KUWASHIMA

出版者

グローバルビジネスリサーチセンター・東京大学MERC

雑誌

Annals of Business Administrative Science (ISSN:13474464)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.12, no.5, pp.265-276, 2013-10-15 (Released:2013-10-15)

参考文献数

21

被引用文献数

1

---

This paper suggests three footnotes regarding heavyweight product manager (HWPM). HWPM, a term coined by Fujimoto (1989), refers to powerful managers that act as both internal and external integrators. Footnote 1: Fujimoto (1989) used the term “product manager” for project managers responsible for product development to emphasize their long-term and wide range of responsibilities and authority, which continue even after the completion of a product development project. Footnote 2: The list of internal integration index and external integration index used to measure HWPM and the organizational variables that comprise the two are given in the Appendix of Clark and Fujimoto (1991). However, the organizational variables noted as composition factors for these indices are misprints. In fact, it is necessary to reverse the organizational variables that refer to the indices. Footnote 3: Based on their empirical study, Clark and Fujimoto (1991) classify the following two cases as “lightweight product manager structures.” First is one in which “the degree of internal integration is high while that of external integration is low,” and second is when “the degree of internal integration is low while that of external integration is high.” However, the two product development organizations significantly differ. By classifying them, it is possible to glean deep insights into the relationship between the product development organization and product development performance.