Thursday, August 09, 2001

bookmark: connotea :: del.icio.us ::digg ::furl ::reddit ::yahoo::

"In a recent forecast analysis, Gartner predicts U.S. pharmaceutical companies' IT spending will increase at a CAGR (calculated annual growth rate) of 12.8 percent - from $3 billion in 2000 to more than $5.5 billion by 2005. The group forecasts spending on software and external services will outpace spending for hardware, network equipment and internal services."

"The report stresses as advances in genomics and proteomics facilitate a move toward more personalized medicine, the drivers to IT spending will become even stronger as companies attempt to:

• Rationalize therapeutic areas and compounds, as well as the sub-populations they address,
• Store and integrate clinical data with research data,
• Educate physicians about expanding product lines,
• Solicit patients to participate in targeted clinical trials, and
• Manage an increasing number of trials.

In order to address these challenges, Gartner believes IT vendors that compete in this space must develop a business process focus, rather than marketing their products on the basis of functionality. "To win those large contracts, a vendor must align its marketing message with the key corporate business issues and target an executive who will likely sponsor the project and win additional funding for the project outside those monies allocated to the general IT budget.""

redux [05.14.01]
Motley Fool Celera at a Crossroads

""Companies choose to adopt a product that is perceived to give some advantage over their immediate competitors and would like to see that protected in some way by the platform vendor (Celera) not running around selling it to everyone else, if they can avoid it. This is perceived to diminish the window of opportunity of the platform adopter to gain a lead over their immediate competitor. It is an element of sustainable advantage.'"

"Celera is certainly at a point of transition. It must either decide whether or not it wants to get into this collaborative, more vertical model of integrating itself with certain customers in big pharma or try to make its data and knowledge of it so valuable that big pharma of all walks of life simply has to have access to Celera data. I don't think the company has the time and money to do both. I don't think, for competitive reasons that I've explained earlier, big pharma is going to align itself, in large numbers, with a company that is selling the same applications to its immediate competitors."

redux [06.01.01]
GenomeWeb Software Vendors Hungry for a Piece of the Burgeoning Bioinformatics Consulting Market

"Justin Saeks, an analyst with Frost & Sullivan, sees plenty of room for new players in the consulting market. "I think there is definitely a demand for this," said Saeks, "Maybe equal to or more than the software sales, depending on whether you include hardware with IT consulting."

A Frost & Sullivan study conducted for IBM predicted that life sciences companies would spend nearly $6.5 billion on IT services by 2004.

One reason for the surge of interest in the field is the maturation of data-generating technology, which has left biotech and pharma clients "struggling with the rate of change and the degree of integration on their shoulders," said Bob White, vice president of Accelrys' worldwide sales and consulting division."

redux [05.26.00]
Biospace Biotech Productivity: Myth or Method?

""The data suggest that the biotechnology industry used to be more productive than Big Pharma, but not any longer," said Rebecca Henderson, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management whose been studying the question for six years. "The public biotechs have declining productivity - and look as if they are running into the same problems as Big Pharma."

On every metric that Henderson has studied---number of scientific papers and patents per R&D dollar, cost per new drug--she found that biotech and Pharma productivity were quickly converging, and both were getting worse. After spending six years of studying the question, Henderson says she has found "no systematic evidence that small firms are more productive.""