White Paper Draft final

“An Organisational study of ICT Innovation as a Strategy in Five
Pharmaceutical and Technology Cases”
MBS - Information Systems for Business Performance
Stephen McCarthy
Dorota Gedrowicz
Kieran Mulcahy
Kristina Gyurova
Robert O’Leary
Course Coordinator - Dr Karen Neville, UCC
Project Mentor – Mr Gerard O’Riordan, HSE
Date: 30th
August 2012

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................7
2. Literature Review.............................................................................................................................8
2.1 ICT Innovation as a Concept.....................................................................................................8
2.1.1 What is Innovation?...........................................................................................................8
2.1.2 Innovation as a Misunderstood Concept .........................................................................10
2.1.3 What is ICT Innovation? .................................................................................................12
2.2 ICT Innovation in the Pharmaceutical and Technology Sectors ............................................13
2.3 Critical Success Factors for ICT Innovation...........................................................................14
2.3.1 McKinsey's 7S's Framework for Innovation Management .............................................15
2.3.2 Hard Critical Success Factors..........................................................................................19
2.3.2.1 Strategy..................................................................................................................19
2.3.2.2 Systems..................................................................................................................20
2.3.2.3 Structure ................................................................................................................21
2.3.3 Soft Critical Success Factors...........................................................................................22
2.3.3.1 Culture...................................................................................................................22
2.3.3.2 Leadership .............................................................................................................23
2.3.3.3 Capabilities............................................................................................................24
2.4 ICT That Facilitates Innovation ..............................................................................................25
2.4.1 Developments in ICT Innovation....................................................................................26
2.4.1.1 Ubiquitous Communication Technology ..............................................................27
2.4.1.2 Corporate Business Intelligence............................................................................28
2.4.1.3 Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)............................................................29
2.4.2 How ICT Fosters Organisational Innovation ..................................................................30
2.4.3 Measuring ICT's Value Contribution to Innovation........................................................32
2.4.4 The Role of Change Management in ICT Innovation Success.................................................33

3. Methodology..................................................................................................................................35
3.1 Research Objective..................................................................................................................35
3.2 Research Questions .................................................................................................................35
3.2.1 Research Question 1........................................................................................................35
3.3 Qualitative Research ...............................................................................................................36
3.4 Method Steps...........................................................................................................................38
4. Case Analysis.................................................................................................................................39
4.1 Backgrounds of Organisations ................................................................................................39
4.2 ICT That Facilitates Innovation ..............................................................................................41
4.2.1 Pharmaceutical Sector .....................................................................................................41
4.2.1.1 Pharma Process......................................................................................................41
4.2.1.2 Drug Development ................................................................................................43
4.2.1.3 EKI ........................................................................................................................44
4.2.2 Technology Sector...........................................................................................................46
4.2.2.1 Health Tech ...........................................................................................................47
4.2.2.2 Web Tech ..............................................................................................................48
4.2.3 Contrast between ICT Innovation in Pharmaceutical and Technology Sector................50
4.3 Critical Success Factors for Innovation ..................................................................................53
4.3.1 Pharmaceutical Sector .....................................................................................................54
4.3.1.1 Pharma Process......................................................................................................54
4.3.1.2 Drug Development ................................................................................................55
4.3.1.3 EKI ........................................................................................................................57
4.3.2 Technology Sector...........................................................................................................59
4.3.2.1 Health Tech ...........................................................................................................59
4.3.2.2 Web Tech ..............................................................................................................60
4.3.3 Contrast between Critical Success Factors in Pharmaceutical and Technology Sector..62

5. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................64
5.1 Business Problems Identified from Literature ........................................................................64
5.2 ICT Solutions Identified from Case Studies ...........................................................................64
5.3 Implications of Findings .........................................................................................................65
5.4 Recommendations...................................................................................................................67
5.5 Future Direction ......................................................................................................................70
6. References......................................................................................................................................71
6.1 Academic and Industrial References.......................................................................................71
6.2 Figure References....................................................................................................................75
6.3 Web References ......................................................................................................................76
7. Appendices.....................................................................................................................................78
7.1 Additional Interview Transcriptions .......................................................................................78

Figures
Figure 1: Relationships between the concepts of Innovation, 7S’s and ICT ……………..………..15
Figure 2: McKinsey's Original 7 S's Framework …………………………………………………..16
Figure 3: Modified McKinsey’s 7S’s Framework ..................................................................……..17
Figure 4: Model of Individual Innovative Behaviour Determinants………………………………. 23
Figure 5: Estimated Probability of Engaging in Innovative Activity …………………………….. 26
Figure 6: Knowledge Hierarchy...……………………………………………………………….….30
Figure 7: Business Value Delivered Through 2006 by Intel’s IT Innovation Initiatives………….. 31
Figure 8: Lewin’s Change Management Model …………………………………………………... 34
Figure 9: eMarketer.com’s Data Driven Industries survey …….…………………………………..43
Figure 10: Innovation Process within Pharmaceutical Industry…………………………………… 46
Figure 11: Perceived ICT Value vs. Cost in Pharmaceutical Sector ………….…………………... 51
Figure 12: S95 Model for the Integration of Enterprise and Control Systems …………………….52
Figure 13: Pharma Process’s System Dependency Model ………………………………………... 54
Figure 14: Innovation Strategy for EKI ………………………………………………………..…..58
Figure 15: Modified Strategic Problem-Solving Model…………………………………….……...69
Tables
Table 1: Literature Review of Critical Success Factors of Innovation……………………..……... 18
Table 2: ICT Solutions - Matrix Analysis of Literature …………………………………………….27
Table 3: Details of White Paper’s Subject Organisations…………………………………………..40
Table 4: ICT Innovation Solutions Employed by Subject Organisations ………………………….50
Table 5: Summary of Critical Success Factors employed by Subject Organisations ……………...62

Acknowledgements
The research group would like to thank to following people who contributed to the white paper:
Dr Karen Neville, Course Coordinator ISBP, UCC.
Mr Gerard O’Riordan, HSE.
Chemical Engineer at “Pharma Process”
Team Leader for Manufacturing Controls and Information Systems at “Pharma Process”
IT Leader to Engineering Services at “Pharma Process”
Lead Automation Engineer at “Drug Development”
Plant Engineering and Operations Leader at “Drug Development”
A member of “EKI’s” Innovation Centre of Excellence Team
Quality Manager at “Health Tech”
ERP Deployment Leader at “Health Tech”
Two members of “Health Tech’s” IT Compliance and Tech Services Team
QA Officer at “Health Tech”
The CEO of “Web Tech”
Note: pseudonyms were used for each of the white paper’s subject organisations in order to
conceal their identities.

1. Executive Summary
This white paper offered qualitative insight into information and communication technology (ICT)
innovation as a strategy in five pharmaceutical and technology organisations.
Conducted research focused on the forms of ICT solutions currently being employed by subject
organisations to support innovation, and the critical success factors needed to ensure ICT innovation
success in both sectors. Therefore, this white paper will be of particular interest to academics and
practitioners involved in the field of innovation.
A comprehensive literature review was presented in section 2, the methodological approach and
research objective were discussed in section 3, and case study analysis of findings from the primary
research were examined in section 4. Finally, the white paper presented a conclusion and
recommendations in section 5, before describing a future research direction that should be pursued
beyond the scope of this white paper.

2. Literature Review
In this section, an in-depth literature review was undertaken. Innovation as a board concept was first
looked at, before focusing on ICT1
innovation in particular and its current place in literature. The
white paper then delved further into the current state of ICT innovation in the pharmaceutical and
technology industry.
2.1 ICT Innovation as a Concept
This section began by first setting out the concept of innovation and addressing the common
misunderstandings around the subject. Subsequently, ICT innovation was then looked at which was
to be the central focal point of this white paper.
2.1.1 What is Innovation?
The literature with regards to innovation has a long and comprehensive history, and the topic has
come to the fore in recent times. In the current economic recession businesses around the globe are
striving to become more efficient. A Google search of the term “Innovation” produces over 16
million results while an unrestricted search of academic publications yields tens of thousands of
articles (Crossan & Apaydin, 2011). Innovation as a strategy is currently very much in vogue and
this can be seen in different markets around the globe. The European Union (EU) made it one of the
seven ‘flagship initiatives’ of its ‘2020 strategy’, while the United States defined innovation as
imperative to the country’s economic recovery (Tilford & Whyte, 2011).
Innovation is generally described as a source of competitive advantage and wealth creation due to its
key importance to the survival and success of an organisation (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Drucker,
1985; Eveleens, 2010). Management research confirmed that firms with strong innovative
capabilities can achieve sustainable competitive advantage, and in turn can earn supernormal profits
and create a solid market position (Tidd et al., 2011).
1
Information and communication technology is a term used to describe an array of technological solutions that aim to
open up new lines of communication for business actors i.e. internal staff, management, collaborative network partners.

One of the first definitions of the term described innovation as: “the introduction of a new good, the
introduction of a new method of production, the opening of a new market, the conquest of a new
source of supply or half manufactured goods, the carrying out of the new organisation of any
industry” (Schumpeter, 1934, pg. 66).
Based on Crossan and Apaydin (2010) definition of innovation, this literature review focused on
three types of innovation: Product, Process & Business Model Innovation.
 Product Innovation Product Innovation has been defined as “taking established offers in
established markets to the next level” by focusing “on performance increase, cost reduction,
usability improvement, or any other product enhancement” (Moore, 2004, pg. 88).
Essentially, product innovation concerned the area of new product development whereby
market opportunities are commercialised by addressing the needs of one or more consumer
segments (Moore, 2004; Trott, 2005).
 Process Innovation Process innovation relates to the operational activities that source,
manufacture and delivers an organisation’s product to the market (Crossan and Apaydin,
2010). Crossan and Apaydin, (2010, pg. 1168) stated that process innovation was usually an
“internal phenomenon” for firms, and can be improved through management techniques,
production methods and technology. The goal is to make a company become more
competitive, and to increase and retain a strategic advantage in an ever-changing business
environment.
 Business Model Innovation was found to be based around a company’s value proposition
for their chosen consumer segment, revenue model and cost structure (Crossan and Apaydin,
2010). Through business model innovation a firm may be able to create novel ways of
conducting day-to-day business while also potentially reaching untapped markets through
new channels (Moore, 2004). Business model innovation can involve tweaking an existing
business model or creating an entirely new model (Chesbrough, 2007).

Since Schumpeter (1934), there has been a steady increase in literature dealing with the topic of
innovation. While Schumpeter’s (1934) explanation emphasised innovation as doing things
differently, subsequent authors, such as Drucker (1985), suggested various definitions of the term,
many referring to innovation as a process of idea generation.
This was further expanded and described through a “linear model”, where R&D leads to
development of market opportunity with production and manufacturing then aiming to commercially
exploit this opportunity (Hanel, 2007; Kline and Rosenberg, 1986). This was eventually replaced by
a “chain linked model” which sought to accurately portray the outcomes of each stage in the
innovation process, while also monitoring the knowledge store of an organisation (Hanel, 2007).
This white paper adopted O’Sullivan and Dooley’s (2009, pg. 5) definition of innovation as it
appeared to be the most comprehensive description of the subject and its core concepts:
“Applying innovation is the application of practical tools and techniques that make changes,
large and small, to products, processes, and services that result in the introduction of
something new for the organisation that adds value to customers and contributes to the
knowledge store of the organisation”.
In the following section innovation as a misunderstood concept was discussed, in particular the
difference between innovation and invention.
2.1.2 Innovation as a Misunderstood Concept
Although innovation seems to be included in almost every organisation’s mission or vision
statement, it is often a misunderstood concept and implementing innovation appears to be
problematic (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009). There are numerous examples of failed innovation
projects, where prominent corporations failed to adapt to market discontinuity in the technology or
business environment (Eveleens, 2010).
One of the reasons for this is that there is still misunderstanding in the way the terms “innovation”
and “invention” are linked. There have been many debates on the difference between the two terms
(Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). This challenge could be traced back to Schumpeter’s first description
of innovation as doing things differently (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010; Schumpeter, 1934).

The emphasis on novelty in Schumpeter’s definition according to critics implies that every change
could be considered as innovation which makes it difficult to differentiate between “innovation” and
“invention” (Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).
Inventions are the fruits of innovative thinking and in its turn innovation could be based on
invention, for example Motorola’s first cell phone. However, O’Sullivan and Dooley (2009, pg. 6)
stated that “many inventions never lead to innovation” as they were not commercially exploited.
Freeman (1997, pg. 6) made a clear distinction between the two terms:
 "Invention is an idea, a sketch or model for a new or improved device, product, process or
system” i.e. idea generation.
 “Innovation in the economic sense is accompanied with the first commercial transaction
involving the new product, process, system or device, although the word is used to describe
the whole process” i.e. commercial exploitation of new/existing ideas.
In summary, invention is the construction or creation of a new product or device that has never
existed before; and innovation is where new or existing ideas are commercially exploited by an
organisation to create a process of change, in a way that “adds value to the customer” (O’Sullivan
and Dooley, 2009, pg. 29). However, innovation is not necessarily reliant on invention (Freeman,
1997; Schumpeter, 1934). In fact, process and service innovation, often require the replication of
well-established techniques and technology to existing processes within the organisation without
essentially demanding something novel (O’Sullivan and Dooley, 2009).
In the following subsection, the topic of ICT innovation was address by looking at how ICT can
support the innovation process.

2.1.3 What is ICT Innovation?
Innovation supported by ICT is a growing organisational management area which has many critical
implications in today’s digital economy. ICT innovation or “Technology Transfer” can be defined as
the application of a technological platform by an organisation, for the purpose of “promoting
technical innovation through the transfer of ideas, knowledge, devices and artefacts” (Trott, 2005,
pg. 313).
Therefore, the white paper adopted this definition of ICT innovation:
ICT innovation is where ICT solutions are employed to support and enable an
innovation process.
This definition should not be confused with innovations in ICT, where new ICT hardware and
software are the output of an innovation process. Instead, ICT is a key facilitator to organisational
innovation i.e. through enhanced idea sharing and decision making (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009).
O’Sullivan and Dooley (2009) focused on a more market-oriented perspective of ICT innovation by
stating that the technology in question must satisfy internal and external customer needs, such as
through enhanced service levels and support. Therefore, simply adopting cutting edge ICT solutions
may not always suffice, and instead developing a business’s inherent ICT innovation capabilities
should be the point of focus.
Inimitable ICT innovation is now seen as a major factor in performance improvement where
organisation must innovate to grow, survive and operate successfully (Barney, 1995; Ramstad,
2009). OECD2
(2007) stated that ICT innovation offers a solid foundation for competitive advantage
in the current volatile global economy, and therefore cannot be ignored by organisations in their
pursuit for sustainable innovation.
Organisations today are no longer able to compete successfully in their market based on price alone.
Therefore, value creation from differentiation and connecting with the customer is so important that
sustaining a competitive advantage, through innovation supported by ICT, has now become crucial.
2
Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development is an institution which regularly undertakes research on the
economies of democratic nations, in hope that the research findings will facilitate policy making by governments and
ensure economic sustainability.

As stated by Andy Bruce, author of “Innovation: Fast Track to Success” and CEO of web
development firm SofTools, “if you can’t compete on price you have to differentiate, and to
differentiate you have to innovate” (www1). According to Barney (1995), long term competitive
advantage can only be achieved by developing capabilities that are hard to imitate.
In the following subsection the white paper looked at the present condition of ICT innovation in the
pharmaceutical and technology industry as regards ICT innovation, and focused on industrial
research papers as a means of gaining insight into the future implications of these constraints.
2.2 ICT Innovation in the Pharmaceutical and Technology Sectors
Over the past 60 years the pharmaceutical industry has brought over 1200 new drugs to the market
with an average cost of around $800 million, making the fixed cost of innovation very high (Boldrin
& Levine, 2010; Munos, 2009). However, it is a sector in massive decline as more and more large
and valuable patents established in the 1990s are set to expire soon (PWC, 2009). Therefore,
pharmaceutical companies have been forced to move from traditional in-house innovation towards a
more diversified approach to the innovation process. According to Jay Markowitz, biotech
innovation analyst at T. Rowe Price, “the industry’s woes boil down to a single cause: inadequate
innovation” (www2).
Price Waterhouse Coopers’ (PWC)3
(2008) paper also suggested that the pharmaceutical industry
was experiencing an innovation deficit which has massive strategic effects for the whole industry.
Based on this situation, PWC (2008) suggested the pharmaceutical industry’s main players must now
direct increased attention to ICT innovation to ensure profits and market share are not eroded by
cheaper product offerings from generic manufacturers. PWC (2008, pg. 18) recommended that ICT
can help support innovation, as it has the potential to allow a pharmaceutical firm to “produce
treatments which deliver measurable improvements in safety, efficacy and ease of compliance” while
potentially halving development times and drug costs.
Meanwhile, the technology sector has been going from strength to strength as regards ICT
innovation efforts (CEFRIO, 2011). The dedication and intensity at which the technology sector
3
Price Waterhouse Coopers are a multinational service firm which undertakes consultancy work for organisations,
industry bodies and governments. They have many board industry specialisations such as Private Company Services and
Technology, Information, Communication and Entertainment

undertake ICT innovation has lead to firms such as Apple, Google and Intel continuously recording
high annual performance levels despite the economic recession; ICT innovation and strong
innovative capabilities are at the heart of this success (OECD, 2007).
For example, according to Westerman & Curley (2008) Intel’s ICT innovation centres delivered:
 $83 million in NPV (Net Present Value) terms.
 40% of which came from enabling new revenue and reducing communication overheads.
 ROI for innovation projects was estimated to have exceeded 350%, thanks to enhanced
management control, flexibility and tighter relationships with business partners.
This can be explained based on a recent study showcased in Todhunter & Abello’s (2011) report
which showed that ICT usage within an innovation process has many “spillover effects” that lead to
added value; this included such factors as network economies whereby companies have greater
access to collaborative innovation networks and enables innovative changes for products and
processes (Todhunter & Abello, 2011, pg.5). Therefore studying the technology sector’s ICT
innovation success offers a valuable source of knowledge for the pharma industry.
These points were addressed further in the following section of the white paper and looked at issues
such as how an innovative environment can be fostered by following certain critical success factors,
and the role ICT has to play in this process.
2.3 Critical Success Factors for ICT Innovation
According to Freund (1988), critical success factors can be defined as a collection of planning
guidelines, which help management structure and direct organisational processes while avoiding or
overcoming common obstacles that may arise during implementation. The purpose of having critical
success factors in place can be to increase management’s foresight of potential issues, while
alleviating reliance on post implementation hindsight as much as possible. This was important as
organisations can better anticipate challenges, while acknowledging factors that are key to the
commercialisation of new or existing knowledge (PWC, 2009).
Currently, many companies consider innovation supported by ICT to be a source of gaining
competitive advantage over rivals by achieving higher knowledge utilisation, providing superior

products/services or enhancing the value proposition to the customer (Girard, 2009; Trott, 2005).
However, new ICT technologies appear at shorter and shorter intervals. Therefore, to survive the
new competitive environment, no enterprise can afford to stand still (Moore, 2004). Instead
companies should focus on understanding the present circumstances and exploiting opportunities that
the present holds through innovation (Freund, 1988; Johnson et al. 2005).
Based on this insight, this paper sought to focus on a suite of critical success factors that enable ICT
innovative successes (Freund, 1988). To achieve this purpose, the white paper utilised a model
created by McKinsey & Company called the 7S’s Framework for Innovation Management (www3).
This was detailed in the following subsection.
2.3.1 McKinsey’s 7S’s Framework for Innovation Management
In this section McKinsey’s 7S’s framework was described. Based on figure 1, the concept of
innovation was central to all research and discussions in this white paper. McKinsey’s 7S’s then was
adopted as a means to strengthen and develop an organisational innovation processes and pipelines.
Finally ICT laid on the outer edge of figure 1 to support and enabling innovative environments as
well as the deployment of the 7S’s model for this purpose.
Figure 1: Relationships between the concepts of Innovation, 7S’s and ICT in White Paper
Source – Created by Research Team

The 7S’s Framework for Innovation Management was developed by McKinsey & Company, a global
management consultancy firm, to help organisations build resilient and inimitable innovation
processes (figure 2). It has since been widely adopted by firms in a wide range of industries and has
been commonly used as a means of creating organisational effectiveness through innovation
(www3). Applying the framework involves analysing a company’s current positioning as regards
innovation and then redesigning and improving any element that is seen to be lacking (www3).
Figure 2: McKinsey's Original 7 S's Framework
Source- http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_91.htm
In figure 2, McKinsey 7S’s model consisted of two categories: “Hard Elements” (Strategy, Systems
and Structure) and “Soft Elements” (Skills, Style, Staff and Shared Values). As depicted in figure 2,
all seven elements are interrelated and collectively lead to a culture of innovation (shared values).
While, the original 7S’s model focused primarily on a business perspective of organisational
innovation, it can also be used to account for ICT’s involvement in each of the seven elements
(Mohan Das Gandhi et al., 2006).
Based on McKinsey’s model, this white paper adopted these seven critical success factors to ICT
innovation. However, to increase clarity and understanding, the white paper renamed the following
elements: style was renamed “Leadership”, shared values was renamed “Culture”, and staff and
skills were amalgamated under the broader category of “Capabilities”. These changes were based on
a thorough review of the terminology used in literature (Table 1) and qualitative research.

Therefore the following critical success factors were focused on in this white paper:
1. Strategy
2. Systems
3. Structure
4. Culture
5. Leadership
6. Capabilities
Figure 3: Modified McKinsey’s 7S’s Framework for White Paper
Source – Adapted by Research Team
In figure 3, the six elements were then further categorised into hard and soft critical success factors
elements and these were explained in the following subsections. In section 5 of the white paper,
primary research case studies were discussed and each element was looked at from the perspective of
ICT innovation and how ICT supports and influences each of the six elements.

Papers Critical Success Factors
Strategy Structure Systems Leadership Culture Capabilities
AcademicPapers
Johnson (2005). x x x
Clegg et. al. (2005) x
Slappendel (1996) x x x x x
Steenkamp et al.(
1999)
x
Earl and Feeny (2000) x
Rothwell (1994) x x x x
Nieto (2003) x
Takadda and Jain
(1991)
x
Chandler (1962) x
Nieto & Santamaria
(2007)
x
Graen & Scandura
(1987)
x
Kumar et. al. (1998) x
Hall & Paradice
(2005)
x
Hill & Jones (2002) x x x x x
Zien & Buckler
(1997)
x x
Ramstad (2009) x x
O'Sullivan & Dooley
(2009)
x x x x x x
Kanter (1988) x
Hurley and Hult
(1998)
x
Porter (1996) x x x x
Afuah (1998) x
Crossan & Appaydin
(2010)
x x x x x x
Kintor (1976) x

Table 1: Literature Review of Critical Success Factors of Innovation
As seen in table 1, McKinsey’s model was found to be an appropriate aid to the challenge of
fostering innovative environments based on a literature review. Each of elements of the 7S’s
framework continuously appeared in the literature as critical success factors that help foster ICT
innovation in various organisations. Each element was dealt with in full in the following subsections.
2.3.2 Hard Critical Success Factors
McKinsey defined hard critical success factors as accessible organisational elements which senior
management can directly influence (www3). In general, these elements were also easier to
understand and identify within companies, compared to soft critical success factors. The three hard
critical success factors are each dealt in turn in the following subsection.
2.3.2.1 Strategy
In this white paper, strategy was referred to as a plan developed to maintain and build long term
competitive advantage over the competition through ICT innovation (Johnson et al., 2005). It was
important to recognise that ICT innovation should not only be included in the organisation’s strategy
but that it can also support the formulation of strategy (Rottwell, 1992; Rottwell, 1994).
Scott & Bruce (1994) x x
Waterman, et.al.
(1980)
x x x x x x
Kennedy (1983) x
Koestler (1964) x
Trott (2005) x x x x x x
Moore (2004) x x
Industry
Papers
PWC (2009) x x x
PWC (2011) x x x x
OECD (2010) x x x x x x

According to Porter in his article “What is Strategy” (1996) operational effectiveness was not a
strategy, as staying ahead of competitors became increasingly difficult everyday as the productivity
frontier continuously moved outwards. This was due to the fact that ICT is constantly being
developed, which each firm can avail of once an investment was made. Therefore distinctive value
cannot be derived from ICT investments alone. Based on Porter’s (1996) argument, ICT innovation
strategies must instead choose a unique set of activities to deliver a mix of value that cannot be easily
imitated.
Moreover, to fully exploit the potential benefits of ICT, companies need to focus on allocating
resources for acquiring the necessary equipment and setting appropriate training programs for staff
members, thus allowing ICT to support the company’s strategy (Rothwell, 1992; Rothwell, 1994).
This was of critical importance to global organisations with divisions in different countries, where
different business strategies needed to be developed in each individual geographic location, while at
the same time functionally controlled in overwriting decisions (Johnson et al., 2005; Waterman, et al,
1980). As a result, strategy was one of the critical success factors identified in this white paper for
enhancing ICT innovation, as it sought to ensure coordination and unity across an organisation in its
goal to deliver distinct value from innovation processes (Rothwell, 1994).
2.3.2.2 Systems
The white paper defined systems as all formal and informal procedures that allow the organisation to
operate on daily, monthly and yearly basis, such as information systems, training systems and
communication procedures (Waterman, et al., 1980). The innovation process was previously
described as the daily activities and procedures in which staff members engage to complete a task,
systems was appointed as a critical success factor as it mirrored the state of the organisation overall
(Ramstad, 2009; Waterman et al., 1980).
The resource-based theory stated that firms possessed resources, a subset of which enable them to
achieve competitive advantage, and a subset of those that lead to sustainable long-term performance
(Barney, 1995; Johnson et al., 2005). As stated by Barney (1995), capabilities that were valuable,
rare, inimitable, and exploitable through organisational application lead to the creation of
competitive advantage i.e. innovation capabilities. That advantage can be sustained over longer time
periods to the extent that the firm is able to protect against resource imitation, transfer, or substitution
(Barney, 1995; Porter, 1996).

Empirical studies using this theory have strongly supported the resource-based view for
strengthening an organisation’s capabilities, such as ICT innovation (Barney, 1995; Johnson et al.,
2005). Moreover, when those resources are combined and translated into activities, which are
coordinated and are reinforcing each other into organisational systems, they became even harder to
be duplicated and thus resulted in sustainable competitive lead over rivals (Hill and Jones, 2002;
Porter, 1996). In addition, Porter, (1996, pg. 73) stated that “positions built on systems of activities
are far more sustainable than those built on individual activities”.
2.3.2.3 Structure
Structure refers to the hierarchy of an organisation’s “departments, reporting lines, areas of expertise
and responsibility” (www4). In other words, structure provides coordination by dividing tasks
between members of the organisation across ICT innovation channels (Slappendel, 1996; Waterman,
et al, 1980).
This white paper looked at two types of organisational structure: mechanistic and organic (Hill and
Jones, 2002; O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009).
 Mechanistic Structures (also called centralised) were characterised by “deep and narrow
hierarchies between management and staff”, where “responsibilities are well defined and
rigid, communication is principally through the formal hierarchies, and power and authority
are typically based on seniority” (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009, pg. 40).
 Organic Structures are needed at a particular level of growth and diversification of the
company (Waterman, et al. 1980). The centralised structure can no longer support the
multidivisional growth of the business and therefore collaboration innovation networks are
required (Crossan and Apaydin, 2009; O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009). This is consistent with
PWC’s (2008) recommendation for Pharma companies to engage further in collaborations.
Therefore, this white paper supported the theory that innovative companies must build responsive
innovation processes through the use of organic structures i.e. collaborative innovation networks
(Nieto & Santamaria, 2007; Ramstad, 2009). It is only through undertaking this path that companies

could create the next generation of competitive advantage, while extracting resources from structures
and ICT systems (Moore, 2004; Rottwell, 1994).
2.3.3 Soft Critical Success Factors
Meanwhile, McKinsey defined soft critical success factors as organisational elements which are less
accessible, and harder for senior management to influence (www3). However, they are equally if not
more important than the hard critical success factors, despite commonly being referred to as
intangible and difficult to define.
2.3.3.1 Culture
One of the major concerns of ICT enabled innovation focused around organisational culture, as there
was widespread consensus that culture has a significant impact on innovation processes (Steenkamp
et al., 1999; Zien & Buckler, 1997). In essence, a successful culture of ICT innovation should enable
commercial exploitation of opportunities and involves “creating an environment of faith and trust
that good ideas have a likely chance to become great products” (Zien & Buckler, 1997, pg. 279).
Kennedy (1983) believed culture was one of the three key organisation variables for innovation,
along with systems and strategy. Hurley and Hult (1998) expanded on this by stating that these
variables were complimented by structural and process characteristics, such as market intelligence
processing and strategic planning, both of which can be enhanced through ICT (O’Sullivan &
Dooley, 2009).
Scott and Bruce (1994) investigated the innovative behaviour and perceptions as well as abilities
needed to adapt and develop a creative culture. They argued that the individual innovation process,
which is based on a subordinate level, can be fostered through rewarding problem recognition and
the generation of ideas or solution, either novel or adopted. ICT can be used to manage the
innovation pipeline and promote idea and knowledge sharing from an individual to a collective level
(O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009). By promoting ICT innovation at an individual level, this should
finally lead to a collective “prototype or model of innovation... that can be diffused, mass-produced,
turned to productive use, or institutionalised” (Kanter, 1988, pg. 34). In figure 4, innovative
behaviour is seen as the outcome of four interacting areas – the individual, the leader, the work group
and the climate for innovation.

Figure 4: Scott and Bruce’s (1994, pg. 583) - Model of Individual Innovative Behaviour
Determinants
Kirton (1976) distinguished innovative individuals as being those who were “better” at solving the
problems and finding solutions “differently”. Other authors have argued that workers who engaged
in a novel problem-solving style produced more innovative solutions, compared to those who
employed a systematic problem-solving style (Koestler, 1964; Scott & Bruce, 1994). ICT innovation
can help in this objective, through increased communication and leadership guidance and support
(O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009).
2.3.3.2 Leadership
It has been highlighted that the relationship between managers and deputies strongly affect an
innovative climate in the workplace (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Scott and Bruce, 1994). Based on the
work of Graen & Scandura, (1987), there were two types of “Leader-Member Exchanges” found;
these can be either low-quality with formal and impersonal interactions, or high-quality mature
interactions based on trust, mutual liking and respect. High quality ICT exchange, such as

videoconferencing and voice over IP, was argued to the most desirable as it enhanced greater
autonomy and decision support, essential for innovative behaviour (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Similarly,
ICT can build mutual trust and respect when cooperating in a work group (Jarvenpaa & Leidner,
1999).
There is huge responsibility on management and team leaders in innovative companies to overcome
challenges, as they must be competent in making optimal decisions, confident in taking risky actions
by utilising dynamic communication networks. For instance, ICT channels are essential
coordination and decision making tools for leaders (Clegg et al, 2005; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999).
Following Zien’s and Buckler’s (1997) principles on developing innovative environment, a
successful leader’s role was to firstly set challenging targets. ICT can enable better personal contact
with staff and results in a supportive and highly productive work environment for innovation
(O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009). More traditional management techniques were used often for ICT
innovation too, such as guiding staff and teams and engaging everyone in sharing thoughts, planning
and making decisions (Zien and Buckler, 1997).
In essence, this should create a sense of community across the whole organisation that leads to both
the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for ICT innovation i.e. a healthy atmosphere between
management and staff (Zien & Buckler, 1997). According to Nieto (2003) confidence in employees,
shared responsibility, and rewarding employees for their ideas, was as important as having experts in
area and research and development labs.
2.3.3.3 Capabilities
There was also widespread acknowledgement that developing ICT innovation capabilities was
another major driver of organisational competitiveness (Todhunter & Abello, 2011; Trott, 2005).
However, when focusing on the creation and application of new and existing knowledge within an
innovation process, two capability orientations in particular need to be considered:
 The learning orientation must be looked at, which involves developing organisational insight;
thus, leading to learning-oriented knowledge management (Hall & Paradice, 2005; Hurley &
Hult, 1998).

 The market orientation was focused on such issues as customers’ needs, competitors, and
gaining sustained advantage from core capabilities etc. (Hurley & Hult, 1998).
ICT can greatly enhance a collaborative learning approach and expand knowledge bases by sharing
them; thus leading to exponential benefits beyond internal innovative capabilities (Nieto &
Santamaria, 2007). This point was evident in the pharmaceutical industry where collaborative ICT
networks were often developed with external bodies such as universities i.e. University College Cork
and Pfizer’s innovative programme (www5).
In order to overcome limitations with internal capabilities, businesses often form collaborative ICT
innovation networks with external entities to achieve greater flexibility, expertise and
responsiveness to market changes, thus moving away from the “inside-out” way of thinking of
designing new products and services based on internal resources alone (Nieto & Santamaria, 2007;
PWC, 2008; Rothwell, 1994). Furthermore, Trott (2005) stated that few companies have all the
elements of knowledge required to innovate on their own, thus pointing out another reason for
companies to form collaborative networks and partnerships which are enabled by ICT.
In the following section, the white paper delved deeper into the three primary categories of ICT
solutions that supported innovation. Attention was also directed to the tangible benefits ICT
delivered, and how these benefits can be measured and realised through change management. Case
studies and reports were provided as evidence.
2.4 ICT that Facilitates Innovation
Increasingly organisations have looked towards ICT as a way to develop stronger the innovation
process. As illustrated by Todhunter & Abello’s (2011, pg. 25) report, there was “a strong
relationship between ICT intensity and business' innovative activity”, with 57% of respondents
having stated that their innovation capabilities increased due to internal IT support rather than
external. In this section, the white paper dealt with key ICT innovation solutions that have helped
bring about innovative environments and produce successful results.

Figure 5: Todhunter and Abello (2011, pg. 20) - “Estimated Probability of Engaging in Innovative
Activity in 2006-07”
2.4.1 Developments in ICT Innovation
This section of the white paper investigated three key categories of ICT solutions, employed in
organisations to facilitate and support innovation activities. These three forms of ICT solutions were
chosen based on an analysis of literature and what forms of ICT were most popular amongst
companies in the pharmaceutical and technology sectors (table 2). The three categories of ICT
solutions were as follows:
 Ubiquitous Communication Technology
 Corporate Business Intelligence
 Knowledge Management Systems

Paper UCT CBI KMS
O'Sullivan & Dooley (2009) x x x
Girard (2009) x x
Todhunter & Abello (2011) x
Nieto & Santamaría (2007) x x x
Chaudhuri & Dayal (1998) x
Trott (2005) x x x
Osterloh & Frey (2000) x
Chase (2003) x x
Alavi & Leidner (1999) x
CEFRIO (2011) x x x
Fischer (2000) x x x
PWC (2008) x x x
Table 2: ICT Solutions - Matrix Analysis of Literature
(UCT: Ubiquitous Communication Technology, CBI: Corporate Business Intelligence,
KMS: Knowledge Management Systems)
Table 2 outlined these three categories of ICT solutions, which were chosen based on a review of
literature. These authors in Table 2 clearly presented one or all of the three ICT solutions as enablers
to ICT innovation processes and ICT innovative environments.
In the following subsections each of these three categories was dealt with in turn.
2.4.1.1 Ubiquitous Communication Technology
Ubiquitous Communication Technology referred to a range of ICT solutions that enabled business
actors, internal or external to the organisation’s system boundaries, to share ideas, provide up-to-date
information, and coordinate tasks across the innovation process (Girard, 2009; Todhunter & Abello,
2011). The word ubiquitous referred to the nature of communication, whereby contact can be made
anytime and anywhere once there was a communication network in place to manage the delivery of

messages and other data (Todhunter & Abello, 2011; O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009). One example of a
Ubiquitous Communication Technology solution would be Microsoft Lync which offered features
such as video conferencing and instant messaging through their integrated ICT platform (www6).
For instance, Ubiquitous Communication Technology could involve a collective intranet or extranet
service that provided a platform to organise and support the conduction of innovation activities
(Girard, 2009; O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009). In technology firm Google, an intranet service was in
place to share project specifications and coordinate employee responsibilities. One application of the
intranet service was the “Blogger in Google” initiative, whereby workers were actively encouraged
to maintain dedicated blogs regarding innovation activities (Girard, 2009, pg. 115). These aimed to
diffuse information and engage employees from all business units by informing them of
developments in the innovation process (Girard, 2009).
In other words, Ubiquitous Communication Technology aims to improve the flow of information and
opens up lines of communication throughout companies. It also could help build integrated
collaborative innovation networks, such as between pharmaceutical and technology firms (PWC,
2008). By creating a central repository of data, accessible only to authorised business actors based on
stringent data governance rules, the inherent potential of innovation projects can be realised (Nieto &
Santamaría, 2007; Todhunter & Abello, 2011).
2.4.1.2 Corporate Business Intelligence
Corporate Business Intelligence can be defined as ICT solutions that filter and support the
“acquisition, and utilisation of fact-based knowledge to improve a business’s strategic and tactical
advantage in the marketplace” (Chase, 2003, pg. 2). This area was based on a series of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) of ICT innovation that offer high level insight and actionable
information on the performance of business units, territories, work teams etc. There were two
primary purposes to business intelligence found: Knowledge Management and Decision Support
(Chase, 2003).
Knowledge Management involved the structuring of actionable data in a central repository to
facilitate business actors’ assimilation of this data and information into knowledge (Chaudhuri &
Dayal, 1998). As described by Vijay Govindarajan, a highly respected expert on the topic of
innovation and organisational performance engines, innovation can be defined as the commercial

exploitation of market opportunities, through the application of new or existing knowledge (www7).
However, the amount of value derived from intra or inter firm information was based on how
existing and new knowledge can be effectively utilised (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009).
This was where Corporate Business Intelligence technologies such as Decisions Support Systems
came in, as they aimed to transform an organisation’s raw data into knowledge which was then used
for decision making (Chaudhuri & Dayal, 1998). For example, a Decision Support System can help
executive, operational, and tactical levels of management make organisational decisions, where the
business environment may be rapidly changing and action cannot be easily specified in advance
(Chaudhuri & Dayal, 1998) i.e. to tackle disruptive innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. In
other words, Corporate Business Intelligence was an organisational concept that aimed to empower
users when making decisions through the use of technology and information systems.
A more specialised form of Corporate Business Intelligence was Knowledge Management Systems
which the white paper dealt with in the following subsection.
2.4.1.3 Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)
Knowledge can be defined as actionable information which has been internalised, processed and
recalled in the mind of the worker (Alavi &Leidner, 1999; Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). It is based on
the cognitive process of understanding that takes into account such elements as: domain expertise,
learning, judgement on the integrity of facts, procedures, and concepts etc. Knowledge was a key
component of ICT innovation and therefore must be managed effectively to preserve a business’s
innovative capability (Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Trott, 2005).
Essentially, KMS (also known as Content Management Systems) were employed to realise greater
value from innovative efforts by improving the knowledge management process; or as O’Sullivan
and Dooley (2009, pg. 11) put it to: “improve the innovation process through enhanced idea
generation, better decision making, and more effective exploitation”. In particular, KMS empowered
staff at all levels of an organisation to contribute and utilise collective wisdom during innovation
activities i.e. through such enterprise collaboration solutions as Microsoft SharePoint (www6).

Figure 6: O’Sullivan and Dooley (2009, pg. 281) – Knowledge Hierarchy
As many authors pointed out knowledge based assets, especially those that were unique and
inimitable, offered real strategic potential; yet, as with innovation value, the amount of value derived
from intra/inter firm knowledge was based on how existing and new knowledge could be
transformed into wisdom and then commercially exploited (Miller & Shamsie, 1996; Osterloh &
Frey, 2000). In other words ICT must become a “specific instrument of entrepreneurship”, in order to
fulfil Peter Drucker’s (1985) definition of innovation where it becomes a process that utilises
resources to create profit and added value.
In the next subsection, the white paper looked at how exactly ICT innovation can create new wealth
and foster innovative success through ICT.
2.4.2 How ICT Fosters Organisational Innovation
As storage memory and CPU have become increasingly inexpensive in recent years, the business
world has seen an explosion in the amount of data captured (Chaudhuri & Dayal, 1998). Based on
their latest predictions regarding the area of “Big Data”4
, EMC (2011)5
believed the amount of data
stored worldwide would soon reach 32.5 zeta bytes. This has consequences for the management of
data, information and innovation pipelines in organisations.
4
“Big Data” is term coined to refer to large, complex, and dynamic data sets which are stored in organisations. By
analysing this body of data (i.e. through data mining) decision making can be aided.
5
EMC Corporation is a multinational organisation involved in the procurement of information systems and data storage.

Alavi & Leidner (1999) stated that knowledge must be effectively organised and not simply hoarded
otherwise the process of assimilating information into knowledge will be inhibited. A firm’s ability
to learn from both successful and unsuccessful innovative efforts and make decisions depends on
how effectively they capture and share knowledge through ICT (Leonard & Sensiper, 1998; Osterloh
& Frey, 2000).
The case of technology company Intel provided an excellent example of the benefits that can be
realised from directing more attention to ICT innovation efforts and management of organisational
data. Following a change in their strategy, IT became “the fastest-growing contributor to Intel’s
intellectual capital” for reacting to market requirements, with “more than 700 IT-related invention
disclosures were submitted in 2006, with 85 approved for patent filing or trade secret” (Westerman
& Curley, 2008, pg. 33 - 45).
Even more encouraging was that the benefits of increased ICT innovation were visible on the
company’s financial accounts also, as evident in figure 7 below.
Figure 7: Westerman & Curley (2008, pg. 46) -
“Business Value Delivered Through 2006 by Intel’s IT Innovation Initiatives”

PPD offered example where ICT had fostered innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. PPD, a
research service agency for many large clients in the biopharmaceutical industry, adopted a
customised version of Microsoft’s ProtoSphere Lync Edition 2010 (www8). This Ubiquitous
Communication Technology helped increase collaboration across the firm system boundaries, and
reduced R&D costs overall. By also utilising ProtoSphere Lync’s “text chat, voice over IP,
application sharing, blogs, wikis, and user profiles”, the firm was able to earn a six month return on
investment and build stronger collaborative innovation networks (www8).
However, a way of accurately measuring ICT’s business value was still needed, in order to convince
decision makers how ICT innovation can benefit their organisation. This point was dealt with in the
following subsection.
2.4.3 Measuring ICT’s Value Contribution to Innovation
There has been much debate in the past regarding the inherent strategic value of ICT for innovation
processes. Despite the high levels of capital spending in ICT by businesses over the last 20 years,
there have been difficulties in accurately measuring the value derived from ICT investments, which
made many organisations believe that ICT didn’t add value or contribute to their bottom line
(Bryjolfsson, 1993; Carr, 2003).
However, authors such as Tiernan & Peppard (2004) instead suggested that while technology was by
its very nature “purposeless”, strategic advantage can be derived through the unique application of an
ICT platform through business changes. In other words, ICT contribution to innovation comes from
working smarter with the technology, and not by simply by investing in the platform itself (Barney,
1995; Porter, 1996).
Understanding the properties of ICT’s benefits for innovation was essential. According to
Bryjolfsson (1993), ICT value was often of an intangible non-financial nature and may not have a
noticeable effect on the bottom line for many years due to the time lag affect. Failure to recognise
this can cause inaccurate measurement of ICT’s output and poor management of benefits delivery
(Tiernan & Peppard, 2004).
For instance, traditional financial measures such as Return on Investment (ROI), Net Present Value
(NPV) and Payback Method, fail to account for the properties of ICT investments, as therefore

should not be relied on as primary decision making tools (Bryjolfsson, 1993). Instead, McShea
(2006) offered a number of alternative composite measures.
Firstly, “Applied Information Economics” weighed long term business and technology factors by
measuring hard financials, intangible benefits and probability distribution or risk (also known as
scoring methodologies). Another composite measure involved “Portfolio Management” whereby ICT
investment classes are aligned to support business objectives and strategy. This structured approach
helped balance risk and return to help match the firm’s future profile, which helped distinguish
between strategic and operational investments.
In the following subsection the issue of change management was discussed and its importance in
building strong innovation ICT innovation environments.
2.4.4 The Role of Change Management in ICT Innovation Success
In this white paper, change management was found to be a pivotal business area and key determinant
to the success of ICT innovative environments. Change Management can be defined as a process
whereby attention is directed towards converting a company from “its current state to some future
desired state” (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009, pg. 34).
As stated by O’Sullivan and Neville (2004, pg. 309) “the value of innovative applications is
dependent upon the adoption and the acceptance by the relevant parties involved” such as end users
and other stakeholders. The importance of change management cannot be understated as regards ICT
innovation (www10). For instance, change management would be employed to build a climate of
acceptance for new ICT solutions, and ensure that employees are trained and competent in using
these technologies to stimulate innovation and diffuse knowledge (O’Sullivan and Neville, 2004;
Ramstad, 2009).
Lewin’s Change Management Model can be applied in order to ensure ICT innovation change is
planned for and implemented successfully, by predicting and addressing challenges as they arise. In
other words, it offers a way of managing change, by overseeing staff, cultural, strategic, structural,
systematic, technical issues etc. (www11).

Figure 8: Lewin’s Change Management Model
Source - http://ic-pod.typepad.com/design_at_the_edge/images/2007/06/27/change_modellewin.jpg
The three stages in Lewin’s model were:
1. “Unfreezing” involved breaking down the existing status quo in order for the organisation to
build a new way of operating (www11). A firm must also identify the processes, business
units, user groups affected by changes. This began by challenging a company’s core beliefs,
values and attitudes to seek a new equilibrium (Earl & Feeny, 2000; Klein & Knight, 2005).
2. “Changing” was to be implemented once uncertainty had been resolved, and aimed to avoid a
top down approach by engaging employees in the process of change (www11) (Fischer,
2000; Klein & Knight, 2005; Ramstad, 2009). However, Bratton Consulting among others
have stated that change takes time and it is a process not a single event, and continuous
support mechanisms such as frontline training, and open lines of communication are
extremely important as there may be still be inherent fears among staff (www12).
3. “Refreeze” reinforced the ICT innovation changes once they have been embraced by the
organisation in order to make it a permanent part of the system (www11). This means that the
ways of working are first benchmarked and then institutionalised to create a new norm of
stable daily operations (O’Sullivan & Dooley, 2009). For example, Google encouraged a
culture of innovation by creating a policy that allowed employees 20% of working time per
week to construct projects of their own choosing (Girard, 2009).

3. Methodology
In this section the white paper’s research objective and questions were first outlined. The
methodological approach was then discussed, as well as the method steps for conducted research.
3.1 Research Objective
This section outlined the white paper’s research objective which formed the foundation for all
conducted research. These were developed from the preceding literature review and through expert
consultations on the topic of ICT innovation in the pharmaceutical and technology industry.
The white paper’s research objective was as follows:
To investigate ICT innovation as a strategy in five Pharmaceutical and Technology
organisations.
In the next section the two research questions were dealt with.
3.2 Research Questions
The white paper then went on to detail research questions which would structure the case studies and
qualitative research interviews. Research questions were used to divide the overall problem.
3.2.1 Research Question 1
Q1. How can ICT be used to facilitate innovation?
The first question regarded the specific forms of ICT that can be employed in organisations to aid the
innovation process and foster a more innovative environment. The white paper also took into account
the role change management plays in this and how ICT innovation success is measured; something
which was extremely important for pharmaceutical companies, given the finite resources available
for innovation (PWC, 2009).

An OECD (2007, pg. 7) report stated that rapid advances in ICT “have enabled new forms of
competition and opened new markets for the creation and delivery of innovative products and
services”. Therefore, ICT was seen as a pivotal element in innovation. Similarly, a CEFRIO6
report
(2011, pg. 4) asserted that “the greater the intensity with which an organisation uses ICT, the greater
its potential for innovation”; this white paper addressed the implications of this statement.
3.2.2 Research Question 2
Q2. What critical success factors of ICT innovation can be adopted?
The second question firstly investigated the critical success factors needed for undertaking ICT
innovation in both sectors. The critical success factors investigated were those previously outlined in
section 2.3, based on McKinsey’s 7S’s model. In particular the role of ICT in each of these elements
was looked at and how these collectively contribute to a strong innovation pipeline and culture of
innovation.
The aim of this research question was to take the lessons learned from case studies regarding ICT
innovation in technology firms, and look at how these can be applied to pharmaceutical
organisations. The research question shed light on the differences between how ICT innovation is
undertaken in both sectors addressing a gap in current literature. Given the proven record of ICT
innovation success for technology companies (CEFRIO, 2011), insight could then be formed on how
pharmaceutical firms can overcome the innovation deficit and foster stronger ICT innovation (as
discussed in section 2.2).
In the following subsection, the white paper’s approach to qualitative research was described.
3.3 Qualitative Research
In order to tackle each of the research objective and questions outlined in 3.1 and 3.2, a solid
methodological approach was required to structure efforts and ensure that accurate and appropriate
insight was gained for the task at hand. Therefore, it was decided to undertake a qualitative approach.
6
CEFRIO is a Canadian research agency which specialises in the promotion of ICT innovation for client organisations. It
is made up of a collective network of experts from universities, government and industry research bodies.

The white paper mainly focused on qualitative data collection as a research methodology. All
primary research was based on a series of in-depth interviews as the standards of responses were
much more detailed and beneficial to the work. They were based on a series of onsite, unstructured
interviews with staff of the subject organisations which were carried out in person for a set time
period.
Case study research was the most suitable approach for IS research as it helped provide the white
paper with solid and practical knowledge that goes beyond available literature, and allowed an in-
depth investigation of the problem (Yin, 1989). Case studies of subject organisations could also be
compared and contrasted for analysis leading to a more clinical interpretation of research findings.
Additionally, using the means of qualitative research over a more quantitative approach helped the
research group gain further information through follow up questions during unstructured interviews
(Yin, 1989). For instance, any topics of interest that came up during the interviews could be pursued,
which would not have been possible for survey questionnaires alone or structured interviews. As
innovation was a conceptual area, qualitative research was therefore essential.
Furthermore, document analysis was employed to further the white paper’s understanding of the
research problem. While this was useful, it provided shallow insight and was best used to confirm
solid points identified in the case studies (Remenyi & Williams, 1995). A series of consultations with
experts on the subject of ICT innovation were also organised. The experts that were contacted
included professionals and academics dedicated solely to the subject of ICT innovation. Finally,
LinkedIn.com was used to engage with other site members experienced in the area of ICT
innovation. Questions were posted on the topic ICT innovation in the pharmaceutical industry to
seek further knowledge.
In the next subsection, the method steps were looked at to describe how qualitative research was
carried out. This involved setting out a set of constraints and problematic areas which would need to
be tackled during the conduction of case studies.

3.4 Method Steps
Firstly, each interview was recorded in full once permission was given by the interviewee. When
interviews had been concluded, the recorded audio files were transcribed into text and structured
around the interview questions. This involved attentive listening and attention to detail in order to
ensure that all issues were covered and ideas were accounted for in an honest and accurate manner.
The research team recognised that there were certain limitations regarding case study interviews.
Firstly, there was a risk of interviewer bias where leading questions were asked or misinterpretation
resulted based on the opinions and preferences of the interviewer (Yin, 1989). Similarly, there were
also risks of interviewee bias. However, the white paper’s case study interview were all conducted
face-to-face and took place onsite in the interviewee’s natural setting, which increased the integrity
of responses (Yin, 1989). Finally, the white paper’s transcriptions were tested to ensure accuracy by
a research supervisor.
Once interviews had been written up, each transcript was coded to help organise findings and unearth
any points of interest. Quotations were coded according to the primary areas of study outlined in
both the research questions and literature review. Follow up phone calls were also conducted to seek
confirmation on any areas of ambiguity. Finally, cross case analysis was undertaken to discover any
common trends or differences between case studies in the pharmaceutical and technology sectors.
In the following section, the white paper directed attention an analysis of the conducted qualitative
research.

4. Case Analysis
This section outlines the insight gained from the conduction of on-site visits to the white paper’s
subject organisations. The accumulated primary and secondary research was analysed and interpreted
to help find numerous high level patterns and secure a more faithful interpretation of what the
solution to the problem needed to be. Further research based on expert consultations also aided this
task, such as through posing questions on LinkedIn.com.
Firstly, the white paper’s subject organisations were introduced in the next subsection.
4.1 Backgrounds of Organisations
Here the white paper presented a brief introduction to the subject organisations where primary
research case studies were conducted. Pseudonyms were used in the white paper to conceal the
subject companies’ identities. These included: pharmaceutical firms “Pharma Process”, “Drug
Development” and “EKI”, and technology firms “Health Tech” and “Web Tech”. All case studies
were focused on the Irish divisions of the subject organisations, which are outlined as follows:
 Pharma Process is a multinational pharmaceutical firm, whose Irish headquarters are based
in Cork. The Cork plant mainly specialises in the manufacture of drugs, and therefore process
and business model innovation was the main point of focus to ensure that maximum
commercial value can be gained from current capabilities. The firm currently has 700
employees in Ireland and plans to expand in the future.
 Drug Development is also a multinational pharmaceutical company based in Cork, which is
dedicated to research excellence in healthcare products and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Their Cork site is of great strategic importance as it is a primary manufacturing site for new
product introductions. Process and business model innovations are constantly being looked at
as a mean to gain sustainable strategic advantage. The company currently employs 1,600
employees in Ireland across three sites.
 EKI is a multinational pharmaceutical firm based in Cork and is one of the world’s leading
R&D and drug commercialisation companies. Again its Cork site is mainly focused on

pharmaceutical manufacturing, and has experience in leading new organisation wide ICT
deployment. Also located at this site is an innovation centre of excellence, one of only twelve
worldwide, which directly influences the innovation process for over a 100,000 employees.
 Health Tech is a part of a multinational conglomerate, centred within its technology
portfolio. The Irish plant is situated outside Cork city and is involved in the production in
many of the conglomerate’s diverse product ranges. Around 450 people are currently
employed in the firm. Health Tech is one of the largest providers of medical equipment and
IT in the world and continues to invest in ICT innovation. It has many strong ICT innovation
partnerships with firms such as Microsoft and Oracle.
 Web Tech is an SME technology firm based in Cork which specialises in IT security and
services. They currently employ 30 people and operate nationwide. Their aim is to provide
expertise and add value for their customers in areas such as networking configuration, anti-
virus software and disaster recovery. Web Tech also has many strategic partnerships with
multinationals from the technology sector i.e. CISCO and Microsoft. Based on these
networks further knowledge was gathered on cutting edge developments in ICT innovation.
Company Pseudonym Sector Organisation Type
Pharma Process Pharmaceutical Multinational
Drug Development Pharmaceutical Multinational
EKI Pharmaceutical Multinational
Health Tech Technology Multinational
Web Tech Technology SME
Table 3: Details of White Paper’s Subject Organisations
Source: Created by Research Team
Table 3 shows the company pseudonyms, sectors and organisations types studied in this white paper.
The main research direction of this white paper was that the subject organisations studied in the Irish
Pharmaceutical and Technology sectors were solely focused on process and business model
innovation; meanwhile R&D product innovation was carried out offshore. However, this constraint
did not diminish the value of this white paper’s findings as each the subject organisations remained

fully dedicated to enhancing their innovation process. As a result all subject firms were focused on
commercially exploiting product inventions from R&D through process innovation while tweaking
and strengthening business models through innovation.
In the following section the white paper delved further into the white paper’s qualitative research.
The findings from all five case studies were organised into two main sections, based on the two
research questions: ICT that facilitates innovation (section 4.2) and critical success factors of
innovation (section 4.3). A cohesive depiction of the white paper’s analysed research was presented
to aid the reader’s understanding.
4.2 ICT That Facilitates Innovation
In the following subsections the white paper delved into the specific forms of ICT, as described in
section 2.4, that were employed to facilitate innovation in subject firms.
4.2.1 Pharmaceutical Sector
Firstly, ICT innovation as a strategy in the pharmaceutical sector was looked at by focusing on three
of the white paper’s case studies.
4.2.1.1 Pharma Process
Corporate Business Intelligence plays an important role in pharmaceutical process and business
model innovation, as stated by Team Leader for Manufacturing Controls and Information Systems in
Pharma Process:
"Our vision of the IT system is to be a data-driven organisation with streamlined business
processes… Data is very critical so as you develop your product you want to gather data on the
product, how the processes performed and so forth”.
An example was offered here by a chemical engineer in Pharma Process where BI (business
intelligence) and ICT helped increase batch production control. Pharma Process found the optimum
batch load and timeframes based on data modelling and statistical inference to calculate the levels of

process manufacturing. By using the following process modelling applications the company was able
to move to smaller more efficient batch sizes with more regular runs:
“Process analysis technology gives exact information about the instrument measures of what happen
in the chemical vessel and this is used to create the computer-based model. Another ICT application
is JMP - advanced mathematical and computational tool for statistical design of experiments. This
tool enables measures on chromatography colour, determining rate of change, 2nd derivative from
the formula from the axes. Then the modelled process path is checked to see if it matches what was
expected. Otherwise, it means that they have to review their understanding”.
KMS were found to be prevalent also. For example, in Pharma Process, ICT solutions such as
business social media, SharePoint and Lync etc. were needed to coordinate process innovation
between the headquarters in America and its divisions, such as in Ireland. These tools were used to
monitor process improvement and informed staff whether action can be taken through innovation. As
pointed out by a chemical engineer for Pharma Process:
“There is an internal blog, wider communication type of social media where there is a place for
questions and answers from all of the sites of the company, where everybody can post inside of the
company and get quick and most of all relevant response. The newest collaboration site is Microsoft
Lync, what is a huge change on global scale for the company”.
However, Pharma Process seemed to be more cautious about the prospect of investing in new ICT
innovation systems. Instead the firms were more focused on deriving greater value from current ICT
resources, or through replication of reliable industry standards rather than clean-slate innovation. As
Pharma Process’s Team Leader for Manufacturing Controls and Information Systems stated:
“We don’t innovate for the sake of innovation. We’re not like IT companies that develop new IT
systems. We would prefer to use standard products where available but there are times where what’s
standard out there isn’t appropriate.”
Therefore, purchasing ICT solutions to support the innovation process wasn’t seen as a being pivotal
to everyday operations. However, the company was still open to the prospect should the need arise.

4.2.1.2 Drug Development
A 2012 Capgemini survey found that 75% of executives in the pharma industry believed their
company was data driven (www14) (See Figure 10). Drug development is one of these data driven
companies operating within this sector, as stated by their Lead Automation Engineer.
“We are a data driven company, and by data we mean not only the one created by information
systems but also the data created by humans. If you give employees the opportunity to use the
knowledge generated by other people, they will have more time to analyse the data, rather than
focusing on collecting it.”
Figure 9: eMarketer.com’s Data Driven Industries survey
Source - http://www.emarketer.com/Mobile/Article.aspx?R=1009134
Utilising business social media platforms such as Yammer, automated workflow management
systems and KMS are helping Drug Development deal with this complex data. Continuous process
innovation can occur once quality data is collected. According to the Lead Automation Engineer:
“The installation of better Management Information Systems results in people working more
efficiently in other parts of their job, this is knowledge management, and we invest in Knowledge
Management Systems such as SharePoint and Yammer social media as they eliminate the burden of
recording and maximising human knowledge. However, it is challenging to understand what data is
important to store. Therefore, our practice is to store everything”.

Drug Developments Plant Engineering & Operations Leader backed up these points on the benefits
of KMS:
“It allows us to organise knowledge and facilitate staff, while harnessing the data and maximising
our human capital”.
It was also indicated that ICT systems influenced activity control in process innovation, enabling
Drug Development to create optimum batches without the need for quality testing. This enables
cheaper product offering, increased efficiency and identifies control of the product. SAP and
Microsoft systems are used within Drug Development for his; however issues with regards to
regulation hinder innovation and upgrades to these systems are also an issue. This was addressed by
their Lead Automation Engineer:
“One of the main technologies Drug Development uses is SAP and Microsoft systems. However, it is
a challenge to adopt a new system due to the tight regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. This
often acts as a barrier to ICT innovation, as we are limited in certain aspects”.
Therefore, Drug Development appeared to be more reluctant towards the prospect of investing in
new ICT innovation systems overall, as stated by the Engineering & Operations Leader:
“Drug Development’s attitude for ICT innovation is very risk averse. The crisis that Ulster Bank
recently experienced had a huge effect on all businesses. Customers were worried and raised issues
with Drug Development “Could this happen to you?”
This was a common trend among all pharma companies due to standards around regulation, data
integration and security.
4.2.1.3 EKI
The research team interviewed a member of EKI’s Innovation Centre of Excellence (CoE) Team
which operates across the multinational organisation. This team was tasked solely with dealing with
ICT innovation and more specifically with process and business model innovation. The interviewee

described how rather than doing 15 steps in drug development, they aimed to cut them down to 2-3,
thus improving responsiveness to market demands. Business Intelligence played a large role here:
“We’ve got an ICT tool called In-Market Voice of the Customer. This is a tool for us to go into a
market and ask a customer or patient what is your experience with our product and what they would
like to see done differently. Another ICT tool is called a Cost of Goods Tear Down… From a
manufacturing perspective the cost of goods is really important cause there’s a bit push to
incrementally decrease our costs base on an annual basis”.
KMS were being used to facilitate EKI in their quest for business model innovation. This involves
directing more attention to customer care products in emerging economies, thus moving away
slightly from the pharmaceutical product portfolio. Customer care products are now seen as more
lucrative market, but they still face a number of challenges, as stated by a member of EKI’s
Innovation CoE:
“In the future, Pharma companies need to focus explicitly on the customer in emerging markets.
Therefore, we believe that pharmaceutical industries will be even more dependent on ICT innovation
technologies, such as knowledge management systems and information systems, as they will help us
better understand our consumers and allow us to deepen customer relationship, which in its own
turn will bring a lot of revenue for the company”.
In particular, ICT solutions such as business social media, intranet search engines and other ICT
solutions were being employed to communicate and coordinate changes across EKI. As stated by a
member of EKI’s Innovation CoE.
“Currently, the Innovation Team is using Yammer - the enterprise social network. For sustainability
we have internal and external networks. We get e-mails every day which improves benchmarking.
Also we use enabling videoconferencing, it is sort of an internal Skype sharing the same US number
for free, instead of world-wide networked Skype or telecom ANTN numbers’ paid option”.
Similar to Pharma Process, EKI has employed standardised ICT platforms in order to help build
stronger process innovation. They were also more focused on commercialisation and replication of
innovation (see figure 11). The interviewee stated that EKI remained cautious when it came to ICT
innovation overall:

“We undertake a dragons den styled process which involves us pitching ideas internally. We follow
the rule of ‘fast to fail or fast forward’… The idea is that we will go after an idea aggressively if we
meet a set milestone and if the project is not looking good at that stage we’ll kill it. So there’s
discipline to control a set of projects going forward, cause if you don’t get good at the discipline at
killing projects you’ll just have an ocean of projects that aren’t going to come to anything”.
Figure 10: Innovation Process within Pharmaceutical Industry
Source - Pharma Process’s IT Leader to Engineering Services
Figure 10 shows the innovation process in the pharma sector used by companies such as EKI, Drug
Development and Pharma Process. It was found that all firms tended to focus on replication rather
than invention and work on bulk and tablet primary manufacturing.
4.2.2 Technology Sector
The white paper then turned its attention to ICT innovation as a strategy within the technology
sector, looking at two of the white paper’s case studies.

4.2.2.1 Health Tech
Based on the Health Tech case studies it is clear that ICT solutions were continually being looked at
as a means to support innovation and improve processes and business models. As stated by Health
Tech’s ERP Deployment Leader:
“Health Tech invests heavily in ICT, they see it as a key enabler of innovation. If you look at the
investments made in Oracle, it’s largely to get a deeper vision of the business to drive innovation and
further profitability”.
This point was confirmed by the Health Tech’s IT compliance team:
“There’s a whole team devoted to looking at emerging technologies and attempting to get us on
board of those as quickly as possible”.
As discussed by Health Tech, ICT solutions such as videoconferencing, intranet forums and
collaborative editing systems were imperative to innovation especially in large multinational
companies where employees were based in dispersed locations as outlined by a the one member of
Tech Services Compliance team:
“If you are looking at the innovation process for a large workforce, a lot of it is to do with
communication, file sharing… video conferencing. So that’s the sort of stuff we look at and again a
lot of our customers are internal so for us a lot of it is about data storage and communicating with
people”.
In particular, the business social media platform Collabs was employed by Health Tech to great
effect. As described by the second member of the IT Compliance team:
“There is a new tool out there called Collabs which is being promoted. It’s very similar to Facebook
as you go on with a group of people and you’re sharing files, ideas and profiles. If you’re working
on the same team on a different continent you can share books or standards with your colleagues”.

Financial incentives were used to encourage employees to use KMS for idea sharing. By rewarding
knowledge sharing, employees are then motivated to invest further time and effort into the
innovation activities. As introduced by Health Tech’s QA Officer:
“We have a system (SharePoint) as means for putting ideas up from employees to be reviewed by
function managers to see whether they are feasible”.
This point was then described further by Health Tech’s Quality Manager:
“After the suggestion has been reviewed, the person who sent it gets rewarded. People are the
subject matter experts, for example people in process know what they are doing in a way that they
tell you what is working for them and how to manage it better, much better than for example us
sitting over here in isolation and thinking this is a good idea”.
Therefore, responsibility for building innovation pipelines was shared throughout the firm.
4.2.2.2 Web Tech
Web Tech’s CEO began by describing the type of ICT supported process innovation conducted in
the SME technology firm Web Tech:
“Innovation is the adaptation of new technology to improve business efficiency... (Here in Web Tech)
ICT innovation is about creating new pieces of code faster and more efficient... There is huge
amount of innovation around the security, in ICT security e.g. Web Tech would develop firewall,
spam filtering, anti-virus, web content browsing, USB disablement”.
Cloud computing infrastructure was a key enabler Web Tech’s innovation strategy and helped
encourage a more open approach to ICT innovation. Online collaborative editing and KMS ensured
project coordination across the innovation process through ICT. As stated by Web Tech’s CEO:
“We have utilised cloud infrastructure, which runs all of our applications and it’s also a
development platform i.e. Microsoft Azure... ICT is crucial for a business and we have developed
own knowledge management platform around SAP Technology which sits on SQL databases and it

manages all of our procedures. It allows us to streamline out reaction to client issues by developing
of databases of issues that clients experience and the quickest path for resolution for those issues”.
Web Tech’s also used social media styled remote support solutions such as Zoho Assist for customer
support and business intelligence. Intranet search engines were also employed to allow staff to access
directories to view who may be best fitted to help out in a new project based on their technical
background and experience. As stated by their CEO:
“We have implemented a series of ICT management services like Geek Squad Support, cloud
services, and various social media technologies such as Zoho Assist and Zartis virtual recruiting.
These help us leverage our innovative capabilities better”.
Also Corporate Business Intelligence was used to ensure all decisions are supported by quality data.
Similar to the pharmaceutical industry, it was clear that the use of data analytics tools were
extremely important in the technology sector for fostering ICT innovation, as described by Web
Tech’s CEO:
“For corporate business intelligence we would use analytics tools like those offered by Zoho to
measure and analyse life data... But talking about innovation there is out own ability to adapt to data
analytics to do business... It’s complex, talking about Big Data”.
The interviewee then commented on how pharmaceutical firms have become more reliant on
standardised ICT solutions through outsourcing of their calibration processes. Web Tech’s role in
securing this platform was then described by their CEO:
“What I see in pharmaceutical companies now is that how they innovating to become more
streamlined and efficient, that they have got heavy emphasis on outsourced cloud services i.e.
calibration testing on their equipment”.
In the following subsection the research findings from the pharmaceutical and technology sector
were compared and contrasted.

4.2.3 Contrast between ICT Innovation in Pharmaceutical and Technology Sector
In this subsection, a cross case analysis of the qualitative primary research was arranged and
presented to introduce some of the key findings of this white paper. Table 4 presents the critical
forms of ICT that support ICT in each subject organisation.
Table 4: ICT Innovation Solutions Employed by Subject Organisations
(UCT: Ubiquitous Communication Technology, BSM: Business Social Media,
CBI: Corporate Business Intelligence, AWMS: Automated Workflow Mgmt. Systems,
KMS: Knowledge Mgmt. Systems, CES: Collaborative Editing Systems)
As can be seen in table 4, both sectors have begun to adopt many novel ICT solutions in their quest
to foster innovative environments. Platforms such as Ubiquitous Communication Technology (i.e.
video conferencing and IP phones), business social media, KMS (i.e. SharePoint and forums)
Corporate Business Intelligence (i.e. Process and Market Analysis Tech) etc. were all used to enable
communication and improve idea sharing.
Both sectors see ICT as a valuable asset that is essential to the everyday business operations.
However, there were differences between the attitudes towards risks and the factors needed to be
considered during purchasing decisions.
Company Sector ICT Innovation Solutions
UCT BSM CBI AWMS KMS Blogs CES
Pharma Process Pharma x x x x x x
Drug Development Pharma x x x x
EKI Pharma x x x x
Health Tech Tech x x x x x x
Web Tech Tech x x x x

Figure 11: Perceived ICT Value vs. Cost in Pharmaceutical sector
As can be seen in figure 11, cost minimisation was seen as essential in ICT purchasing decisions and
influenced perceived ICT value in pharmaceutical firms. Pharma firms were more reluctant overall
to adopt or develop new ICT solutions, and were more likely to try and innovate with current ICT
systems; in contrast technology firms were more likely to seek new applications and ICT platforms.
Another interesting point was that it seems the technology sector often takes the lead in adopting
ICT solutions for supporting innovation, which the pharmaceutical industry replicates later when
these platforms have been tested and proved to benefit organisational performance, and therefore
carry reduced levels of risk. Therefore, developments in the technology industry may be a good
indication of what the future holds for pharmaceutical firms regarding ICT innovation. This point
was mentioned by Drug Development’s Plant Engineering & Operations Leader:
“We need to piggyback on the IT and telecom sector to really get that knowledge around ICT,
patients and customer insights… as the traditional model is probably not sustainable”.
During the onsite visit to Pharma Process, the research team was presented with a systems
architecture model by the IT Leader to Engineering Services. This model, which is known as the S95
Model, was offered as an introduction to how ICT is used to facilitate innovation and depicted the
infrastructure needed to deliver ICT innovation solutions and manage data throughout an
organisation (figure 12).
Perceived
ICT Value

Global Systems
Layer
Collaboration
Network
(WAN)
Knowledge Management
System
(e.g. MS SharePoint)
Ubiquitous Communication
Technology
(VPN1
, e.g. Microsoft Lync)
ERP
(e.g. SAP)
Management
Layer
Corporate Business Intelligence
(Live2
and Historical Data Analytics Tools, e.g. PI)
Control Layer Control Systems
(Network of industry, Training programmes)
Operation’s
layer
Plant Floor
(Delta V batch software control, eBR system3
)
Weeks
Days
Hours
Minutes
and
Seconds
S95 Model for Systems Architecture Integration
Footnotes:
VPN1
Virtual Private Network
Live2
Management, Maintenance and Lab Data
eBR3
system generates electronic batch reports
Organisational Layer ICT Layer Timeline
Figure 12: S95 Model for the Integration of Enterprise and Control Systems
Source – Pharma Process’s IT Leader to Engineering Services

A timeline indicating the rate of data utilisation at each layer was also illustrated and showed that
data is most volatile at the operations layer, and less volatile when moving up the systems hierarchy.
Based on this account, it was clear that process and business model innovation depended on
continuous feeds of clinical data to ensure accurate decisions could be made. While it was offered as
a representation of the architecture which is typically employed by companies in the pharmaceutical
sector, this model could also be applied to the technology sector as it is an “international standard for
the integration of enterprise and control systems” (www13).
Furthermore, the requirements of ICT solutions in the pharmaceutical industry differ between the
global systems and R&D operational level of the S95 architecture model. At the lower level specific
ICT solutions were needed such as highly customised Java or SQL coded “hardcore ICT solutions”.
For example, such a solution would be needed for R&D lab deployment for testing new products.
Meanwhile, at higher levels in the S95 model standardised off-the-shelf solutions were required;
oftentimes maintenance of these solutions was outsourced. This is because customised solutions
require high support costs, such as the need for expensive high skilled workforce to develop
customised ICT solutions (Soh & Sia, 2005). Therefore IT was often outsourced to low cost vendors
at global systems level. As discussed by Pharma Process’s IT Leader to Engineering Services:
“Every pharmaceutical company would have a standard set of applications at a global systems
level... At the operations level you’re looking at bespoke systems that don’t interact with the high
levels. So the room for ICT innovation is greater at lower levels in the S95 model but less as you go
up… The minute you start customising systems at a global level the support costs go through the
roof, so a lot of companies tend to outsource IT at the higher levels”.
4.3 Critical Success Factors for Innovation
In this section the critical success factors described in section 2.3 were revisited and expanded upon
based on the white paper’s case study findings. Critical success factors were looked at through the
lens of how ICT influences and supports each critical success factors in the Pharma and technology
sectors.

4.3.1 Pharmaceutical Sector
This section looked at the critical success factors of ICT innovation employed by the white paper’s
three case studies from the pharmaceutical industry.
4.3.1.1 Pharma Process
Although Pharma Process admitted they don’t approach ICT innovation with the same intensity that
technology companies do, process and business model innovation were still very important in the
company. ICT was seen as an enabler and facilitator to all business units. It contributed to the whole
structure and systems (hard elements) of this white paper’s critical success factors of innovation. As
stated by Pharma Process’s IT Leader to Engineering Services:
“Innovation is one of our mantras, we’re confident in our own pipeline and we would see IT as an
enabler of innovation… however, we prefer to invest in innovation for new medicines as opposed to
IT systems, but we will invest in ICT innovation where necessary”.
Figure 13: Pharma Process’s System Dependency Model

White Paper Draft final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to White Paper Draft final

Similar to White Paper Draft final (20)

White Paper Draft final