The Analysis of Business Problem (ABP) class discussion we had on the classical case of The Future of BioPasteur gave clear thought on how to deal with the conflict in the minds of the business partners as well as reaching the right decision for their business. BioPasteur’s crossroad decision was to either launch a new diabetic drug (DIASTOP) as approvals had been obtained from the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) or delay its release until speculations on its safety for the target audience of the drug are reviewed and verified.
Prior to DIASTOP, the company has successfully launched LOBLOPRIN which took the medical community by surprise and was slowly but surely adopted. The partners had agreed at the start of the company on some key drivers, which formed how they ran the operations of their business:
- The Company would be patient – centric, ensuring that their drugs were designed to have negligible side effects and were safe to use.
- Company sought to do better than its competitors in the area of the effectiveness of the drugs. They had created a superior drug (LOBLOPRIN) compared to its competitors which surprised the medical community positively and gained adoption outside of New England and the East Coast.
- Reputation of the business was important. BioPasteur’s partners (especially) Prof Waitz had put her reputation as a world Specialist in growing micro-organisms, and weight behind the science evidence of LOBLOPRIN. The reputation of the Company was intact which drove the profits from the drug upwards making each partner rich.
Key dilemma with DIASTOP is that the launch was good to go – the team had signed binding contracts and had informed the expectant medical community that the drug would be released soon, however at an Annual global pharmaceutical conference, a key spoiler, Professor Rivers, raised the possibility that the drug was dangerous for BioPasteur’s target age group (50 – 70 years) even though he had not used humans for his theory. The further inhouse analysis undertaken by Dr. Andersen, suggested more work was required to verify Prof. Rivers’ claim.
In analysing and proposing which direction to go with the planned launch or delay of DIASTOP, a proper analysis of the pros and cons of each decision has to be analysed to advise the Company. Important for me is the key thrust of why the business was set up in the first place (its bedrock). Was it to be profitable or to provide a medical innovation in an ethical way based on the mission set by the Company for itself? Would it not be wise to check again that the drugs are indeed safe, even though the query came from an arch-rival and may not be correct? If found wrong, it at least kills the insinuations that the drugs are not safe for consumption.
I really enjoyed listening to the arguments made by Executives for and against the launch of the DIASTOP and how the lecturer, facilitated the discussions until we reached a decision. What came out clearly is that, as advisers, we need to put aside our personal bias and draw up a case for each side of the coin. From there we draw a conclusion.
Lastly, the question of what the Company is known for from an ethical viewpoint is very key. What did the business promise to deliver based on their ethos? How important is your business integrity to you, compared to the profits. Yes, the Company had obtained the FDA’s approval to launch DIASTOP but did the minimal approval given reflect the standard set by BioPasteur for itself and the expectation of the medical community on its new drug? Sometimes being an ethical Company require hard but right decisions. The business may lose money, but the integrity of the Company will be intact in the world’s eye. As we know especially on medical related matters, “…one life lost, is one to many…” Hence, the onus is on BioPasteur to deliver on its promise despite the short-term inconvenience and sunk cost the delay may bring. Ethical businesses always win eventually.
htuR #EMBA28
MY MOTHER SCAMMED ME