My dear readers and followers,

It is hard to believe that it is almost two years since I started this blog!

Since then, many things changed. I left the place I worked for 15 years early this year and started my own journey. Although it has not been easy but the road is full of surprises and joys.

Sometimes, you just have to tell yourself that life is more than just work and work is more than just making money.

I will share more of my thoughts and story with you and hope you do that same too.

Happy Blogging!

John, the blogger

Since main stream blogs, including this “wordpress.com”, are “blocked” in China, I registered a new one at blog.sina.com.cn.

if you are interested in my blogs, please follow me at:

http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1878818231

see you there too!

 

 

Here is another “feel-good” report from a US group (I have no access to its full report). Not only it predicts China will become a life science powerhouse in the next decade but also possibly becomes THE world leader by 2020.

http://www.monitor.com/Expertise/BusinessIssues/Innovation/tabid/67/ctl/ArticleDetail/mid/691/CID/20101611134152307/CTID/1/L/en-US/Default.aspx

The group pointed a few key factors that may contribute to the development, such as government initiatives and economic power.

The question that someone has already asked: can money buy innovation? (I don’t mean buying or investing into patents and late stage products).

Innovation comes from a culture that encourages bold thinking, risk-taking and has long term commitment. These are the things that we don’t have much today in China and the culture will be hard to change any time soon.

Alone with the same thinking, there is a recent report that finds more girls than boys are now doing better in the college and the report attributes it to the current exam system that heavily biases to “memorization” of taught knowledge. Unless the society/culture find a way to encourage more kids to pursue their own wild dreams and becomes more tolerate to “failures”, innovation will be hard to thrive.

If THE LEADER simply means the largest market size in the world, that’s not enough.

John

Recently, I met a friends who used to work at a large pharma and now in a small start-up. He was very proud of the fact that in a short period of time,  just a few years, they have brought 5 products to clinical trails. On the other hand, how many products the large company brought to clinical trail in the same period? 2.

He attributes such difference to the high “spirit” of people working in the start-up company and the efficiency for people to communicate with each other and get things done.

The fact that he mentioned about the “spirit” of the employees in the small company raised my interest. Many people there, including himself, had previously worked in large companies too. They are still the same person. How come they had different mode in different companies?

The answer of such difference goes to one of my theories that I called “who survives?” .

People working for a company certainly want to be there for good. In a small company, that means everyone has to work together to make sure the small company survives first. Only if the company survives, they can survive for longer time. That reality makes everyone motivated to work more closer and more efficient. The fact that they are also close to the decision making makes them feel more responsibility for the company.

It is a totally different situation in a large company. First all, most of people there feel dissociated from any decision making and do not feel as strongly as those in small company how much impact their work might have to the overall success to the company. To make it worth, the so-called modern business model invented by a few “consulting companies” makes sure that company is driven by short term business gain. Therefore judgement often handled down purely based on “business reasons” and had nothing to do about the science or the quality of the work. The environment has made people to realize that their own “survival” in the company should be the top priority.

So, put it a simple way: in a small company, the survival of the company is the most important thing while survival of individual is the most important thing in a large pharma.

People learnt that very quickly.

The fact: Do you own your house? Most people answered Yes to this question actually own only a portion of it. However, this does not affect them to enjoy living in the house. Business is the same.  Ownership is important to motivate you to get into business but don’t get obsessed by it. Let people share the risk and joy with you alone the way. 1% ownership in a great companyworth much more than 100% in an one-man show.

The fact: There may be throusands of people thinking like you when talking about what they can do at current job. It takes much more than knowing a trick or two to start a business. Thinking it over and over again before setting your foot in business.

The fact: Its likely that they had done it for over decades with many chances to fail. And if they had been successful with similar idea does not mean a “copy” will also be successful. Your success will be built on your own merit but not somebody else’s success and may not come as “tons” of Money either.

The fact: Success of your company, particularly if it is going to be set up in China, will be delivered as a package of many factors. Seed money is just one of them. The other factors may be worth more considerations such as the location and local educated workforce and even the type of the food, since you are going there for good and for a long time.

The fact: You will always have a Boss or Bosses: They are your investor, your customer and, to some extent, even your employees. They ca be even worth Boss then the one you have now in your job. If you can not figure this out, don not start a business.

Someone once said: the world is full of ideas (in this blog, the word “perception” is used for “idea” in the title). 

The question is then how many new ideas eventually became marketable products and what percentage of market products made profit? Maybe a better way to look at the issue is to ask the other side of the question: how many ideas/perceptions are needed to make one profitable product.

Scientists often come up with brilliant ideas/perceptions and eager to put his/her idea to work. Very often, even before putting hands on the first piece of material, they already see the product and (huge) profit at the end. However, what they often do not have good sense on what else are needed to complete the journal from a concept to a product and to a profit. As going down the path, they would likely find the product is further down the road and the projected profit, particularly personal wealth, is diminishing (depressing!), as more idea is needed and more people is joining in.

I am not here to discourage anyone to start the journal (myself is now contemplating a such idea), but just to say, we, as scientists by training, should know more about what are needed down the road and to have a realistic projection on products and profit (particularly about personal wealth) to keep us on the track.

Last week, I lost my mailbox key and had to call a locksmith to replace the lock and key for me. A young guy in his late 20′s showed up with his special “on-van-lab”. While chatting with him about being trained as a locksmith and opening his own business, he told me its not simple to be a locksmith company CEO, “you have to know how to be a salesman, deplomat, technician, accountant. You have also to know what’s new out here and what prices others offer”. This young man certainly knew more than me to put an idea/conception to product and to profit.

During 2009, we have seen several historical pharmaceutical merge and acquisitions. The first was Pfizer merged with Wyeth. Now Merck merged with Shering-Plough and the Roche’s purchase of Genentech. The total transaction reaches over hundred billions. At the same time, the newly merged pharmaceutical giants will leave tens of thousands scientists out of jobs. Although, the common business wisdom would think such merge would consolidate the market and increase the productivity, the question is bigger actually better?

An obvious benefit that the merged companies obtains is to remove redundancy in research and combine the research effort the results from both company. therefore the new company would spend less resources in moving the product to the market. However, such business view overlooked that fact that merger of two companies and two teams and two products into one would in short time slows down development of the product, very likely the most advanced product that the other company is acquiring. The buying company will also spend tremendous financial and management resources to conduct the merger and dealing with aftermath of such merger. The overall benefit of such merger may not be imminent and may not be as great as projected.

Larger company provides much more resources for product discover and development than any small company.  Nonetheless, to take advantage of suchrich resources and expertise within the corporate is not as simple as 1 plus 1. Instead, significant effort and resource from corporate and individuals are spent towards “smoothing” the monster machinery in order to make it function as it supposed to work. A rough estimate would put over 50% of time for any one working at a “network” environment is spent on meetings. Many of such meetings are redundant in some extent. In another word, the company needs to “waste” resource in order to use the resource.

Critics to large pharmas have been saying it for some times that larger the company is, less innovative it becomes. As the company grows bigger, bureaucratic system grows to make sure the company works in unison. Such system tries to “standardize” each aspect of operation and even human behaviors. Therefore, bureaucratic system, although essential to integration of the company, is anti-innovation by default. More protocols are established and enforced, lesser likely any new ideas can flourish.

Size is important,  but bigger is not always better.