Narrow Results

The article has a list of the bio-venture companies in Korea. It contains their contact details and their business type.

Finding the Right Biotech CEO.

Thermo Fisher Scientific and Applikon Biotechnology sign bilateral supply agreement.

AET BioTech and BioXpress Therapeutics to co-develop biosimilar Adalimumab.

Octa Phillip Bioscience Managers announces first close on new healthcare fund.

Agilent Technologies' and PREMIER Biosoft's platforms work together to advance lipidomics research.

Phosphagenics licenses TPM^® platform to Indian pharmaceutical company.

Dr. Louis-Philippe Vézina, named as a recipient of the 2012 Prix du Quebec.

Biomedical Engineering Industry Alliance (BME IA): Working in Favour of the Industry's Stakeholders

Counter-Acting Chemotherapy's Side Effects

(Writer's Thought) Treating Patients, Not Diseases

Values-based management and evidence-based innovation management both improve a company’s innovation performance. However, there are no systematic studies of how combining values-based and evidence-based innovation management influences the innovation culture in mid-sized B2B companies. In this exploratory case study, we describe how a longitudinal analysis of innovation culture and a values-based initiative were combined in a 7-step approach, which was applied in a global mid-sized B2B manufacturer of drug-delivery systems and pharmaceutical components over a three-year period. The results of the longitudinal innovation culture survey and the analysis of front-end innovation key performance indicators provided insight into the positive impact of new normative company values on the organisation’s innovation culture as well as on the effectiveness of the idea generation process. The exploratory case study demonstrates how a customised combination of values-based and evidence-based innovation management elements can systematically strengthen an organisation’s innovation culture and the effectiveness of its idea generation process.

Successfully adopting AI and realising its full innovation potential requires different competences within a company. We identified five clusters, namely, AI decision-making, AI utilisation, AI foundational, AI development and leadership & moderation competences, as the basis for our AI competence framework, combining 35 individual competences. Based on a quantitative survey of 215 companies, we determined the importance of these competences for the successful adoption of AI innovations and their current availability within companies. According to our findings, AI foundational competences play a particularly critical role compared to the other competence clusters, which are considered important but comparatively rarely available. Furthermore, our analyses show that companies with higher levels of AI foundational, AI development, and AI utilisation competences have significantly higher AI innovation capabilities. Again, in particular AI foundational competences seem to fertilize the capabilities to identify appropriate AI use cases, to make decisions about AI innovation adoption, to successfully integrate AI into internal processes, and to use the AI innovation effectively within the organisation. Our findings thus enrich the theoretical discourse on competences for organisational adoption of AI innovations and guide practitioners in taking action to develop the necessary competences.

Infradisciplinary, besides interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, applications, forms part of the definition of new company organizational models and, in particular, for networked-companies. Their related systemic connotations characterize them as collective beings, especially regarding the optimization of interactions between agents as well as context-specific interference.

Networked-companies in the building industry (chosen to illustrate the infradisciplinary values of the systemic approach towards company organizational models) require, due to their nature and particularities of context, certain specifications: behavioral microrules of an informal nature, suitable governance of their sector, etc. Their nature and particular context thus determine, especially in the systemic view, the need not only for an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach, but also an infradisciplinary one.