The QUICK SCREEN in Action: Project, Product, or Platform Case Examples

John Michael York
The Institute for the Global Entrepreneur at the Jacobs School of Engineering and the Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego (the United States of America). Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Piscataway, NJ). Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University (United Kingdom).
Dennis Abremski
The Institute for the Global Entrepreneur at the Jacobs School of Engineering and the Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego (the United States of America).
Emily Aboujaoude
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Piscataway, NJ).
Arun Muthirulan
Neovedika KS Ltd. (Cambridge, UK).
Elke Lipka
TSRL, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI),
Krishna Patel
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Piscataway, NJ),
Natali Jouzi
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University (Bloomington, IN),
Yongchan Lee
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University (Bloomington, IN),
Vineet Pradhan
Merck & Co., Inc. (Upper Gwynedd, PA),
Polly Luo
Sanofi US (Bridgewater, NJ),
Alexis Mingey
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Piscataway, NJ).
Lexa Molinari
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Piscataway, NJ).
Michael Toscani
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey (Piscataway, NJ).

DOI:https://doi.org/10.5912/jcb1280

Abstract:

Assessing innovative technologies and venture opportunities in the biopharma-life science space involves a complicated effort. However, should it be? This question is especially relevant when screening new opportunities. This paper addresses how established firms can quickly and efficiently assess new biomedical-life science ventures of different maturity (development and commercial) levels. Boni’s (2012, 2019) “quick screen” and metaphorical “3 Ps” (project, product, platform) provide a practical framework to examine new biopharma-life science ventures (assets). Boni’s works (2012, 2019) frame these elements. They intend to provide a framework to complement case studies for use separately in a workshop or “boot camp” format. Our present effort includes multiple case studies to provide practical guidance for the framework’s use. Accordingly, this paper extends Boni’s work by examining eight practical cases gathered via a purposeful sample to illustrate the use of the “quick screen” relative to each metaphorical category: project (4), product (2), and platform (2). Data sources included company and market information from company documents, firm websites, peer-review sources, market reports, and business portals. Data were mapped against “quick screen” criteria and categorized as positives, negatives, or uncertainties. Evaluation of the mapped data led to low to medium to high ratings relative to opportunity, monetary, and competitive advantage criteria. Descriptions provide qualitative insights to situate each case example relative to its specific “3 P” category, with six cases subclassified (e.g., moderate-low, low-moderate, high-moderate) when graded. This paper provides four practical contributions: 1) multiple “real world” cases to illustrate the framework, 2) a risk-opportunity-maturity relationship model, 3) scenarios of when or when not to use the “quick screen”, and 4) engagement strategies based on “P” classification as practice contributions. It concludes that Boni’s (2012, 2019) construct provides a useful and efficient tool for examining new biopharma- life science ventures (assets) at differing maturities. Future work should build on these case examples, findings, and contributions while embracing a more-structured case study evaluation methodology to further practice and theory contributions.