MÉTODOS DE DISEÑO PARTICIPATIVO

According to Lamattina (2011), leaders of organizations who have completed multiple mergers may express the view: “We’ve done this before, and we know how to do it.” However,

prior literature reveals that the complexities of post-merger integration, coupled with the turbulence of R&D portfolio disruptions, ultimately lead to negative impacts to the R&D pipeline. Much of the PfM literature is based on a rational idea of how the involved managers make decisions based mainly on financial data to optimize resulting changes in the portfolio. A summary of the prior findings on PfM in practice, PfM and post-merger integration, R&D PfM and Pharma PfM in the literature are displayed in Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively. Henriksen and Traynor (as cited by by Martinsuo, 2013) found that despite the project PfM frameworks and their well-intended portfolio analyses and investment optimizations during portfolio planning, project PfM models alone don’t allow for optimum PfM decisions. A six-year case study conducted by Smith and Sonneblick (2013) demonstrated that most managers felt that the PfM process was extremely political, and projects were selected based upon how well its proponents lobbied them in meetings. Despite these discoveries, the literature reveals that financial methods are still the most popular models for PfM. The supporting theories for these methods are

economic-based, and provide little knowledge about the behaviors that drive the PfM decisions that are made after M&A. Linton, Walsh, and Morabito (as cited by Blau et al., 2004) revealed that economic analysis methods have been criticized for their rigid focus on single criteria decision making versus more realistic multiple criteria decision making.

Our study addresses the literature gap surrounding the lack of research on the actual behaviors that drive PfM decisions after a pharma merger. According to Martinsuo (2013), there is a lack of awareness of what managers actually do during the PfM process and the unique

conditions in which portfolios are managed are not fully known. Elonen and Artto (as cited by Martinsuo, 2013) revealed that portfolio managers grant an insufficient amount of attention to portfolio activities. Similarly, Cassiman et al. (2005) states that managerial time and effort spent on managing M&A’s ex post may imply reduced attention to R&D projects. Our findings

provide insights into the behaviors that drive portfolio managers’ decisions, and help improve the quality of post-merger R&D PfM processes. We reveal the unspoken objectives of managers that influence portfolio decisions. This research addresses the gap in prior literature by applying a qualitative, multiple-case study research approach to understanding portfolio managers’

Table 7 Summary of recent empirical research on PPM in practice (Adapted from Martinsuo, 2013)

Reference Data and methodology

Key findings Emerging issues/new gaps Aaltonen (2010) Historical document- based event sequence study in a single pharmaceutical firm

Variation, selection and retention in the evolution of a portfolio. Co-selection and path dependency in portfolio decision making

Causalities and managers' intentions and actions in PPM require further research Blichfeldt and Eskerod (2008) Qualitative interview-based study with 30 firms in different

industries

Projects/activities outside of the official portfolio

consume and compete for resources, which affects PPM performance

Official PPM differs from the actual practice of PPM. Negligence of the actual reality endangers PPM success Blomquist and Müller (2006) Multi-method study: interviews and questionnaire

Project type explains certain middle managers' roles in PPM

Need to take into account project type in selecting PfM practices Christiansen and Varnes (2008) Qualitative, multi- method single-case study in one organization

Managers do not follow the rules agreed for PPM in their decision making, but they observe others, negotiate and debate, and learn

Portfolio decision making as a negotiation and learning process, despite the existence of formal rules. Also the business context/ situation matters Kester et al. (2009) Qualitative interview study in 11 multinational firms

Three genres of portfolio decision making: formalist- reactive, intuitive and integrative

Attention needs to be paid on how people make decisions in practice. More empirical research is needed Kester et al.

(2011)

Qualitative multiple- case study, four firms in different industries

Decision making both as rational, political and intuitive

Power and opinion-based decision making, besides evidence based. The model to be tested further

Killen et al., (2008b)

Questionnaire survey Selected PPM practices are associated with better PPM performance

In-depth studies are needed to further develop

frameworks of how PPM practice and performance are linked

Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2007)

Questionnaire survey Goal setting, information availability and systematic decision making has a significant effect on PPM success

What project managers do have implications on the portfolio level too

McNally et al. (2009) Qualitative embedded single case study Managers' dispositional traits are proposed to be associated with project portfolio

Managers' analytic cognitive style, ambiguity tolerance and leadership style

Table 8 Summary of recent research on portfolio management and post-merger integration Author Research

Method

Research Objective Contribution Getz,

Zuckerman, DiMasi, and Kaitin (2009)

Quantitative Drug development portfolio and spending practices after Mergers and acquisitions

Provided insights into better forecasting of drug

development productivity and resource requirements

following M&A transactions Shibayama,

Tanikawa, and Kimura

(2011)

Qualitative New perspectives for the management of M&A process: A merger case of a Japanese

pharmaceutical company

Showed that engagement and non-rapid rationalization of the workforce can slow the execution of the merger process and delay efficiency savings, and consistently drive the merger process and place the merged firm on a solid foundation with strong commitment from all levels Demirbag,

Ng, and Tatoglu (2007)

Quantitative Performance of M&A in the pharmaceutical industry: A comparative perspective

Revealed that no value creation was realized in terms of research productivity, return on investment, and profit margin

Table 9 Summary of key recent research on R&D portfolio management Author Research

Method

Research Objective Contribution Van Bekkum,

Pennings, and Smit (2009)

Quantitative A real options perspective on R&D portfolio diversification

Contributed to real options theory by demonstrating the correlation between

conditional and unconditional project and portfolio risk Rutten, Doree,

Halman (2013)

Qualitative Exploring the value of a novel decision-making theory in understanding R&D progress

decisions

Applied decision-making theory to explain how managers progress decisions are made in the context of the sunk costs principle

Menke (2013) Benchmark Study

Making R&D portfolio management more effective

Provided recommendations on how to improve portfolio management processes to make them more effective

Table 10 Summary of key recent research on pharmaceutical portfolio management Author Research

Method

Research Objective Contribution Bode-Greul,

Nickisch (2008)

Qualitative Value-driven project and portfolio management in the pharmaceutical industry: Drug discovery versus drug Development -

Commonalities

and differences in portfolio management practice

Described commonalities and differences of the portfolio management process in R&D and provides recommendations for effective portfolio management Blau, Pekny, Varma, Bunch (2004)

Quantitative Managing a portfolio of interdependent new product candidates in the

pharmaceutical industry

Proposes a computational portfolio management approach that selects a sequence of projects Smith and

Sonnenblick (2013)

Qualitative From budget-based to strategy-based portfolio management: A six-year case study

Provided insight into how a pharmaceutical

company managed their portfolio and evolved involved into a holistic approach to portfolio management