.
Já por várias vezes tenho chamado a atenção para o facto de que não existem boas-práticas à priori. Aquilo que são boas-práticas para uma indústria que vive do preço mais baixo pode ser um crime aplicar numa indústria que vive da inovação. Por exemplo:
- "Não existem boas-práticas!!!"
- "Não culpem a caneta quando a culpa é de quem escreve!"
- "Lanchesterianos e a surpresa da flexibilidade talibã"
.
"I have come to believe (and I admit that this is only a theory) that as more and more of pharma’s budget was funneled into advertising and direct marketing to both the general public and to doctors themselves, the path to the top in pharma ceased to be via the lab bench and instead was by way of Madison Avenue (Moi ici: Da Wikipedia "he term "Madison Avenue" is often used metonymically for advertising, and Madison Avenue became identified with the advertising industry after the explosive growth in this area in the 1920s").
...
Like today’s pharma CEOs, he knew a lot about selling but not much about what he was selling.
One consequence of this shift from science to business in the pharma industry has been less and less appreciation for the realities—as opposed to the hype and hope—of drug discovery. This is reflected both in the quixotic choices made by pharma as to what to pursue and in the stunningly bad management of the core talent in drug discovery.
...
Because your modern big pharma CEO knows next to nothing about science, I have to assume they think they are adding value by imposing management schemes they do know about. Let’s consider one such disaster of a fad: lean thinking and six sigma.
...
The problem, though, is the process being modeled here—drug discovery—doesn’t lend itself to this method. As any senior medicinal chemist or molecular modeler would be happy to explain to management, an embarrassingly large fraction of drug discovery involves serendipity—while you’re looking for one thing, you find another. And serendipity is, of course, the complete antithesis of a Taguchi robust process where variance, i.e. a standard deviation, can be well defined- we work in the domain of the unexpected, the domain of the “Black Swan”. Now that the method has been applied and failed, it seems ridiculous to have ever thought it might have succeeded. But not only was it applied with great vigor, it often came to be seen as a much more secure employment path than the vagaries of drug discovery. Not a little talent was wasted on these meaningless exercises and not a few careers lost to management bullshit.
...
Here’s a positive suggestion: instead of using biotech as a model, I would suggest that pharma CEOs look to Hollywood for inspiration. The film industry long ago recognized that what is important is talent. No one can predict what will be a blockbuster (drug or movie), but Hollywood has at least recognized that movie-making is a talent-based industry. Perhaps today’s pharma chiefs need to see themselves as latter-day studio heads—I’m sure they’d love that!—and come to the same conclusions. Define the vision, get and keep the right people, stop making it harder for talented people to do their jobs, give them the time and resources to be creative. Then maybe, just maybe, they would start curing pharma."
.
Que grande artigo!!!
.
Pôe o dedo na ferida!!!
.
E em linha com o postal que está a gestação na minha mente sobre os intangíveis e a criação de valor, e a dificuldade da velha academia encaixar isto na cabeça.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário