Case of BIOCON

R & D PROJECT
Overview

Biocon Research Ltd (BRL) as part

of Biocon Group, one of the
biopharmaceutical company, plan
to change the structure to support
Biocon Group Vision to become a
major biosimilar player (short
term), and to become a global
biopharmaceutical powerhouse
(mid term).
Case of BIOCON R & D PROJECT

1. How do you see BRL current

structure vs proposed R&D
structure
2. What are the anticipated
challenges for the
restructuring plan?
3. How the challenges & new
structure impact Biocon
Group in 2 3 years (short
term) and also 5 10 years
(long term) time
How do you see BRL current structure vs proposed R&D structure? Scope

Approach : Iron Triangle

Quality

Cost Time
Issue Current Structure Proposed Structure
Time  Project timeline unscheduled Scheduled
 Inefficient activity (human resources and
decision process)

Scope Mixed, both biosimilar and biopharmaceutical Dedicated, biosimilar or biopharmaceutical

product
Cost  Cheap, not yet known effective  Controlled
(Biocon R&D expenditure Ratio to Revenue =
0,032 16,9M/514M) compare to Big Pharma
(J&J) ratio = 0,127 (9,1B/71,9B)
Based on exhibit 1 & 2
 Resources can’t be quantified clearly
 1. Change management
Mindset -> Human Management and Engagement
2. Knowledge Management
What are the Specific competencies -> Sharing knowledge
anticipated 3. Regulation in Target Market
challenges for Pros n Cons Region -> Make sure the product suit to Target Market
the restructuring Regulation
plan? 4. Bureaucratic process
Prolonged lead time -> Cross functional Mapping, Time Management
5. Time Constraint
Ongoing project delay -> Scheduling
6. Carry Over Project
Biopharmaceutical projects -> Cooperation with partner
How the
challenges Short Term Long Term
& new
• Impact : • Impact :
structure
• New biopharmaceutical • Both biosimilar and
impact
product development biopharmaceutical new
Biocon delayed product development
Group in 2- • Increase of New biosimilar increase.
3 years product development • Effectiveness of the
(short term) • Controlled cost, scheduled process, collaboration with
and also 5- project, dedicated process, partner (about Si RNA &
10 years and increased capacity in Gene therapy), catch up
(long term) biosimilar product with new technology, will
time? development, will strengthen Biocon as the
strengthen Biocon as the global biopharmaceutical
major biosimilar player. powerhouse.

(Condition : Biosimilar R&D unit (Condition : Biosimilar R&D unit

established, Biopharmaceutical R&D unit established, Biopharmaceutical R&D unit
just built) established)
SYNDICATE GROUP 1 DISCUSSION
How do you see BRL current structure vs proposed R&D structure?
BRL current structure
• One R&D pool talent for all functional unit in
both field, Biosimilar and BioPharmaceutical
• One leader for each laboratory whose
competencies in-line with laboratory core​ (6
lab)
• Resources used for two categorized products
(biosimilar and biopharmaceutical)​ and
knowledge about it shared among others not
quantified, by experience only and also not well
documented.
• There’s no evaluation mechanism  for choosing
priority or eliminate projects ​
Proposed R&D structure
• R&D pool talent divided into several Project
Groups​. Biosimilar and Biopharmaceutical divided
into two unit.
• RnD Head for. Project will be Lead by a Project
Group (PG). PG’s competencies depend on type of
the project requirement
• Resources divided into biosimilar and
biopharmaceutical lab according to previous
project experience​but standardized and written in
manners in the project charter. Resources is used
based on project requirement.
• There is PMO to evaluate on going projects as a
decision maker to start or eliminate projects​
How do you see BRL current structure vs proposed R&D structure?
BRL current structure
• One scientist can be involved in
multiple project​, causing overwork
• Project management team responsible
on finance for all on-going project (but
not mentioned clearly how Project
Management handle this)
• There’s no evaluation mechanism  for
choosing priority or eliminate projects ​
• Driven by internal needs​
Proposed R&D structure
• Scientist assigned by need of a project
and controlled
• Project Management along with head of
RnD​assign Project Manager in each
project running
• There is PMO to evaluate on going
projects as a decision maker to start or
eliminate projects​
• Driven by internal and external (market)
needs​
How do you see BRL current structure vs proposed R&D structure?

BRL current structure Proposed R&D structure

• Certain confusement on decision making

because unidentified clearly
• No portofolio decision process
• Inefficient activity (timing related)
because scientist working in both field,
biosimilar and biopharmacetical, whereas
both field need different focus
• No clear structural form and flow of
decision making
​ decision making
• Scientist assigned by need of a
project and controlled
• Each stages of project reviuwed by
committee
• Well measured activity because
scientist focus on one field
• Clear structural form and flow of
Analysis
Current structure : ​
• Simple birocracy​
• More flexible​
• Cheap

Proposed structure : ​

• Result oriented​
• More systematic​
• Decision maker ​
• Need more investment​
• More efficient