Innovation Description of RTC and the Outcome
In my opinion, I prefer to describe RTC as a ‘Blue Sky Innovator’. The reason is that it is relatively autonomy from the Pfizer and the employees there enjoyed creative and flexible research environment. To some extent, it has worked successfully since it has created several drugs per year, and its managerial style has attracted many scientists to join it. It even provide free innovation network for all the sites of Pfizer. However, it has also put itself into a passive position, which resulted in many challenges. This is because it was fully founded by Pfizer, which make them has less authority to manage its employees, which made it hard to recruit new scientists from top universities like Cambridge. The other challenge is that they could not easily convince headquarters of Pfizer to try their new drugs or listen to their presentations. The final challenge is that the ambiguity of mission makes both leaders and employees confused of their goals, which may lead to unsuccessful future.
Evaluation of RTC through an Organizational Criteria, Partnership
In terms of its partnership, either with the corporation or the other research sites, RTC did quite well to some extent. On one hand, RTC has successfully provided new drugs to Pfizer, and also been trying hard to make closer relationship with Pfizer, by sending many leaders regularly to Pfizer and build personal relationship between the staff. This has made some progress, for example, Pfizer site will track weekly for the process of the projects in RTC, showing big interests of them. RTC has also built relationship with other sites. For example, the Strategic Alliance group and 11-member Research Informatics team, which provides RTC opportunities to work with other sites. On the other hand, it also suffered from these relationships. RTC has to avoid competing with them, which indicates they may miss many opportunities to enhance revenue. The other reason is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document