In order for any company to be successful, placement of the workforce is essential. What structure refers to is that placement and the way the hierarchy is set up. Within other industries such as manufacturing or tobacco, there is a wide variety of potential structural orders a company can take on, however, within the pharmaceutical industry, the order is more specific. Primarily, there is an executive branch that controls the lower branches and allocates resources. Typically, there are many managers with subordinates in many different areas, this in business terms is known as a tall form of management. It allows for high levels of discipline and personal attention to workers but causes the issue of lack of communication from the higher ups.
Specifically, a pharmaceutical company, depending on its type will appoint workers based on their medical abilities and qualifications. For example, under the research and development sector will be some of the company's most intelligent scientists and doctors, when the mental health sector will employ psychiatrists and counselors who are good at human relations. It is also important to have a way of evaluating a company's overall progress. This leaves a section for strategic review and business process improvement, as well as sectors in charge of waste reduction and budget management. Overall, the tall structure of the pharmaceutical business provides jobs for not only doctors, because after all, like any other industry, without a planned organized structure, the company is doomed to fail.
Stephen Kessler
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
What are some current events in your Industry?
Over the month of October, which is the end of the fiscal year, most companies have been holding meetings between the shareholders and directors to discuss the companies performance, what should be changed, kept the same... etc.
For the past few years companies have found a cheaper alternative to actual meetings. They have started hosting e-meetings. These meetings occur only in cyberspace, between the shareholders and directors of the companies. The shareholders are allowed to post questions which are then answer by the board of directors; Officials review the posted answers and decide which ones are best to answer. Some e-meetings include voice or video, but most only allow typing. This has been proven to be more economic for companies. Mark Schurman, a company spokesman said "the latest meeting's $3,000 cost was far less than the typical tab of $10,000 to $15,000 for in-person meetings between 2001 and 2006." Therefore it is saving companies time and travel costs. E-meetings also have a larger amount of attendance than in person meetings as it is easier for the shareholders to access a website, thatn to travel across the globe.
However, there is great controversy over the impact and validity of e-meetings. Many shareholders do not want to take part in them "because some investors preferred to look members in the eye at annual meetings" (Miller) This is what happened to the company Symatec, which abandoned e-meetings because of the harsh complaints received after only the first one. There are also companies, such as Johnson & Johnson which make an event out of their annual meeting. Approximately 1900 people line up outside at 7:30 am, two hours before the actualy meeting starts, to make sure that they can get in. J&J gives them Danish pastries and coffee before the meeting and sandwiches and samples of J&J products after. This is a great approach taken by J&J, which seems to be working, and maybe should be followed by other big companies who have trouble attracting their shareholders to annual meetings.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203537304577032313764922458.html
Maria
For the past few years companies have found a cheaper alternative to actual meetings. They have started hosting e-meetings. These meetings occur only in cyberspace, between the shareholders and directors of the companies. The shareholders are allowed to post questions which are then answer by the board of directors; Officials review the posted answers and decide which ones are best to answer. Some e-meetings include voice or video, but most only allow typing. This has been proven to be more economic for companies. Mark Schurman, a company spokesman said "the latest meeting's $3,000 cost was far less than the typical tab of $10,000 to $15,000 for in-person meetings between 2001 and 2006." Therefore it is saving companies time and travel costs. E-meetings also have a larger amount of attendance than in person meetings as it is easier for the shareholders to access a website, thatn to travel across the globe.
However, there is great controversy over the impact and validity of e-meetings. Many shareholders do not want to take part in them "because some investors preferred to look members in the eye at annual meetings" (Miller) This is what happened to the company Symatec, which abandoned e-meetings because of the harsh complaints received after only the first one. There are also companies, such as Johnson & Johnson which make an event out of their annual meeting. Approximately 1900 people line up outside at 7:30 am, two hours before the actualy meeting starts, to make sure that they can get in. J&J gives them Danish pastries and coffee before the meeting and sandwiches and samples of J&J products after. This is a great approach taken by J&J, which seems to be working, and maybe should be followed by other big companies who have trouble attracting their shareholders to annual meetings.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203537304577032313764922458.html
Maria
Who have been some influential leaders (Founders, CEOs) in the industry over the past 20 years?
Medical and pharmaceutical advances are considered the most important industry advances, as these advances can save lives, come up with cures, and create new ways to fight and destroy harmful bacterias. Many emerging pharmaceutical companies count on their scientist making these discoveries and advances in order to propel themselves to the top of the industry. Sometimes all it takes is discovering a cure for one form of cancer to propel a company to the top. It all starts with the leaders in the companies, the CEO's.
"OncoMed was founded in 2004 on the research Dr. Michael Clarke and Dr. Max Wicha conducted on the critical role cancer stem cells play in metastasis" (fierebiotech, 2008). The company got off to a slow start in the first two years, finding it difficult to find funding and medical pathways to market their products. In 2006, Paul Hastings took over the company and changed it forever. Hastings had decided to invest $3 million of his own money in the company, and after meeting with company executives, decided to raise $86 million more. Eventually the number increased to $154 million in two different phases. "New investor Nomura Phase4 Ventures participated in the financing along with existing investors like US Venture Partners, Latterell Venture Partners, The Vertical Group, Morgenthaler Ventures, Adams Street Partners, DeNovo Ventures and Bay Partners" (fiercebiotech, 2008).
It's hard for any company to receive investments from venture capitalists investment groups. It's especially hard in the pharmaceutical industry because of the risk involved that the drug will fail or not get approved by the FDA for distribution. The reason why OncoMed received the funding that they needed was completely due to the innovation and decisiveness brought to the company by Paul Hastings.
"OncoMed was founded in 2004 on the research Dr. Michael Clarke and Dr. Max Wicha conducted on the critical role cancer stem cells play in metastasis" (fierebiotech, 2008). The company got off to a slow start in the first two years, finding it difficult to find funding and medical pathways to market their products. In 2006, Paul Hastings took over the company and changed it forever. Hastings had decided to invest $3 million of his own money in the company, and after meeting with company executives, decided to raise $86 million more. Eventually the number increased to $154 million in two different phases. "New investor Nomura Phase4 Ventures participated in the financing along with existing investors like US Venture Partners, Latterell Venture Partners, The Vertical Group, Morgenthaler Ventures, Adams Street Partners, DeNovo Ventures and Bay Partners" (fiercebiotech, 2008).
It's hard for any company to receive investments from venture capitalists investment groups. It's especially hard in the pharmaceutical industry because of the risk involved that the drug will fail or not get approved by the FDA for distribution. The reason why OncoMed received the funding that they needed was completely due to the innovation and decisiveness brought to the company by Paul Hastings.
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-reports/emerging-drug-developer-oncomed-pharmaceuticals
fiercebiotech. (2008, November 10).Emerging drug developer: Oncomed pharmaceuticals. Retrieved from http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-reports/emerging-drug-developer-oncomed-pharmaceuticals
-Gabriel Resstack
-Gabriel Resstack
What workforce trends is the industry experiencing? For example, manufacturing jobs in this industry are moving to Mexico and China at a very fast rate. Or, companies are investing heavily in engineering in order to remain competitive through innovation.
The article
I choose to read deals with a topic that we have not talked much about. In our research we have focused heavily on
the actual pharmaceutical companies but not the jobs that go along with the pharmaceutical
industry. We have talked slightly about the
jobs within the companies but one job that relies heavily on the pharmaceutical
industry is that of a pharmacist. The
article that I read talks about workforce trends dealing with pharmacists. I have previously talked about the workforce
trend dealing with outsourcing and moving manufacturing overseas. Everything that the pharmaceutical industry
does is in order to make a profit.
Workforce trends are tied closely to that of the economic trend.
The article
talks about recent trends dealing with pharmacists since the recession. As would be expected pharmacist jobs have
been cut back, but not at an alarming rate.
The demand for pharmacists is still very high in the pharmaceutical
world. The author of the article feels
that the demand for pharmacists will continue to increase. The author discusses how the amount of women
in the pharmacist workforce has increased 15% in 19 years. The split between men and women is almost
50/50. The amount of pharmacists working full time has decreased 6% while the
number of part time workers has increased 6%.
It seems that more workers have been moved from full time to part time
in order to cut costs. The decreasing of
hours while still maintaining the same amount of work means that the pharmacist’s
workload is sufficiently increased and the amount of stress they feel also has
increased.
This
article shows that although the recession did not hit very close to home in
respects to the big companies profits, it did do a good amount of damage to
smaller things such as jobs with relation to the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmacist like big pharmaceutical companies
are part of the lucky ones though; although there has been a little bit of a
hit due to the recession there will always be a need for drugs which means that
people will always be able to find jobs in these ever prosperous industries.
Rachael
Bieck
Who have been some influential leaders over the past 20 years?
One of the most influential people in the Pharmaceutical industry was William Campbell Steere Jr. He joined the company in 1959 and became CEO in 1991. Steere became CEO juts as Pfizer's top selling drugs Lipitor and Viagra were starting to take off. These drugs caused great prosperity for Pfizer and made them a stock market superstar. When Steere became CEO he began to focus completely on research and development of nee medications. His complete focus on the pharmaceutical side of Pfizer caused many major sell offs of companies Pfizer owned. Anything not relevant to the productions of new during Steele sold off of the company. This consolidation made Pfizer even more potent in the drug world and pushed them to the top spot in their market. During his reign the company was called one of the most admired and best managed companies of the time. Steer stepped down as CEO and Chairman of the board in 2001 but did not leave the company. He received a consulting job and was able to keep a seat on the board for another decade. Steere’s complete focus on just pharmaceuticals and his dedication to the company pushed the company above and beyond what it had ever been before and made Steele a star among the pharmaceutical world. His influence has still been heavily felt even a decade after his retirement through the CEO Jeff Kindler who was heavily influenced by Steere's vision and was even helped into the position by Steere. Kindler recently stepped down from his position after a slew of controversy surrounding his position.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
What are some current events in your industry?
A very important current event was
recently published on November 1, 2011.
The article that I chose talks about how Pfizer had higher profit and
revenue than what was expected by Wall Street for the third quarter. As I have previously talked about Pfizer is
soon going to lose their patent for the cholesterol drug Lipitor. The fact that Pfizer was able to come out
with strong profits the quarter before the patent is to expire is a very good
thing for Pfizer. In a way Pfizer is
proving to Wall Street and its competitors that they can beat expectations that
others have set for them. With the
upcoming patent expiration Pfizer will try and do this again.
Pfizer needs to prove to people
that although they are expected to lose a lot of money they will still be able
to profit. Right now there is a tough decision
that shareholders need to make. Do they
sell or do they stay with the company.
Many people would say that with the expected loss that Pfizer is about
to have that the smart thing to do would be to sell. The fact that so much money was just made in
the third quarter is making it hard for people to make this decision. How could you sell a stock when it has just
made you so much money?
Pfizer and its shareholders are in
a tough position. If Pfizer can find
drugs to replace Lipitor than it is a good idea for people to stay with their shares,
but if Pfizer does not find drugs to help with the Lipitor loss they are going
to lose a lot of money and the price of their shares are sure to go down.
Rachael Bieck
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP18b66033f28e487f8c3ca870409ac319.html?KEYWORDS=pharmaceuticals
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Who are the emerging companies?
In addition to Gabriel's post I would like to say that the cancer treatment pharmaceutical companies seem to be greatly deveeloping and emerging into the market. The need to develop treatments for cancer is always being perfectioned and researched by many comapanies, as it is an illness that takes away many lives.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals is another company that specializes in oncology and other drugs that are specific to illnesses that are difficult to treat; such as Schizophrenia or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. It is ranked 23rd on the survey conducted by Deloitte of the 500 fastest growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and clean technology companies in North America. The lastest drug that was brough out by Spectrum was Fusilev (Levoleucovorin) for injection, in April 2011. Fusilev is designed for the treatment in Patients with Advanced Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.
Just like Gabriel said, I believe that the fact that so many of these companies are emerging will be a positive one for the future. They research and develop drugs to help treat and cure many illnesses that are difficult or fatal. Therefore, the fact that they are gaining bigger places in the market place is favorable as they will be able to find more solutions for diseases that are still uncurable.
http://www.spectrumpharm.com/outlicense_Spectrum.html
http://investor.spectrumpharm.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=530172
Maria Durá Ballester
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals is another company that specializes in oncology and other drugs that are specific to illnesses that are difficult to treat; such as Schizophrenia or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. It is ranked 23rd on the survey conducted by Deloitte of the 500 fastest growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and clean technology companies in North America. The lastest drug that was brough out by Spectrum was Fusilev (Levoleucovorin) for injection, in April 2011. Fusilev is designed for the treatment in Patients with Advanced Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.
Just like Gabriel said, I believe that the fact that so many of these companies are emerging will be a positive one for the future. They research and develop drugs to help treat and cure many illnesses that are difficult or fatal. Therefore, the fact that they are gaining bigger places in the market place is favorable as they will be able to find more solutions for diseases that are still uncurable.
http://www.spectrumpharm.com/outlicense_Spectrum.html
http://investor.spectrumpharm.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=530172
Maria Durá Ballester
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)