Managing the risk aspects of the product development process at the Upjohn Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to describe an innovative practice that has implication for new product developers within and outside the pharmaceutical industry. Design/methodology/approach The case describes an approach to managing the risk inherent in marketing drugs. The organization's original name has been retained, although individual managers' names have been changed at its request. Interviews with former company employees and publicly available data were used to write the case study. Findings The paper provides information and action approaches to new product developers that may reduce the risk of losing products to regulatory action. The subject company devised a risk management response to its product development. Their results offer direct implications for new product development teams in the drug industry. By extension, the implications may aid traditional companies outside of the pharmaceutical industry. Research limitations/implications As in all case studies, the specific conditions found in one organization may not be found more generally in others. Readers are cautioned that the conclusions drawn in the case may have limited applicability. Practical implications The case depicts an innovative application of the risk minimization to the new product development process. Other organizations may find the technique of value in their own efforts. Originality/value The case is the first to describe a successful application of risk management to the product development/product management process. It offers the potential of improving the lifetime of pharmaceutical products in the marketplace, allowing the company a longer time to reap profits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".