[pic]
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2-6

External Analysis 7-13

Internal A ,mnalysis 14-17

Functional Analysis 18-21

Business-Level Strategy 22-24

Corporate Level Strategy 25-27

Strategy Implementation 28-30

References 31

Executive Summary

A Customer’s Hope

Eli Lilly and Company is on a mission that benefits millions of people every day by helping them live longer and fuller lives. They provide their customers with answers that matter—life saving and enhancing medicines. They carry out this mission by discovering, developing, and marketing pharmaceutical therapies. Many of the pharmaceutical products Lilly brings to market are first-in-class, providing customers a therapeutic relief that did not exist. An example of this is their newly FDA-cleared drug, Xigris™, which helps thousands of people every day by treating the potentially fatal condition of sepsis. The Lilly research team persevered over two decades to bring Xigris™ to fruition, even when over ten other companies failed to produce a viable drug remedy for sepsis (Eli Lilly Annual Report 2001). This dedication truly exemplifies Lilly’s commitment to their customers and transcends into all their efforts.

Eli Lilly continues to be a successful pharmaceutical company, while other pharmaceutical companies have seen their success erode, because of the strategies they employ. Lilly has focused on building partnerships rather than acquisitions and continually reinvests the highest percentage of their sales revenue into research and development. Both of these actions allow them to expand their reach in research and development providing them with one of the strongest pipelines in the industry. These investments benefit their customers and provide value for their stakeholders.

While many people may believe that pharma-ceutical products primarily increase the cost of health care for individuals, the converse is actually true. As depicted in Figure 1, other forms of healthcare such as surgery, hospitalization, and physician visits consume a larger portion of each health care dollar than prescription drugs. In fact, pharmaceutical therapy significantly reduces costs associated with complications that may arise from chronic conditions. Lilly specializes in developing and commercializing drug therapies to manage disease states in endocrinology, cardiovascular, neurology, oncology, and osteoporosis. In each of these categories, Lilly markets two or more drug products and plans to introduce several more. Through this specialization, Lilly provides therapeutic options for its customers and decreases their overall health care costs. Lilly recognizes that customers not only need pharmaceutical options but value-added programs. LillyAnswers provides their customers with assistance on issues important to them. The program offers health care information about disease conditions as well as suggesting ways to manage the disease and empowering the customer with knowledge in managing their health. Additionally, Lilly recently introduced a drug discount program for qualifying senior citizens, providing them with a flat fee for a 30-day supply of any Lilly retail drug. Lilly actively supports Medicare reform and the inclusion of prescription drug benefits to reduce medical expenses for senior citizens. Lilly has been and continues to be a strong collaborator with universities. These academic alliances not only benefit Lilly but the community as well. Universities receive funding to explore novel approaches and when breakthrough discoveries result, Lilly furnishes the resources and capabilities to develop, evaluate, and commercialize new therapies. This process expands research capacity and fosters valuable learning opportunities for academic programs.
A Thriving Company The pharmaceutical industry is a dynamic environment with industry consolidation occurring since the early 1990’s and continuing into the millennium. Eli Lilly maintains a sustained competitive advantage by practicing a number of strategies. Lilly primarily has focused on its core business of pharmaceuticals. While it did divert its attention by integrating downstream with the acquisition of PCS Health Services, this was a short-lived venture, and the company divested this operation in 1998. In the previous decade, many pharmaceutical companies lessened their emphasis on their pharmaceutical businesses and focused on operations of their non-pharmaceutical business units. A new trend is emerging among these companies to get back to basics by concentrating on their pharmaceutical entity and divesting non-core businesses. However, the impact of diversification already has taken its toll. Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Schering-Plough are lacking a pipeline of promising drug candidates, encountering patent expirations for their key drug products, and facing stiff generic competition. Lilly continues to be one of the top pharmaceutical companies reinvesting the largest percentage of sales for research and development as outlined in Table 1. This investment is reaping rewards for Lilly with a pipeline of significant drug offerings. In 2001, Lilly launched one new product and submitted four new drug approvals into the FDA—a record for the company. Lilly anticipates launching ten new drug products between 2002-2005. Only Pfizer has more drug candidates in development, primarily attributable to their acquisition of Warner-Lambert in June 2000. One of the primary reasons Lilly has not been subject to the consolidation phenomena in the industry is their core competency in managing strategic alliances. By developing strong, meaningful collaborations, Lilly expands the reach of their research and development efforts. These efforts allow Lilly to capitalize on the advances currently pursued in biotechnology with the mapping of the human genome but limit their overall expenditures. Lilly’s financial performance for the past five years has been strong compared with competitors. As shown in Table 2, Lilly outperforms or ranks second when comparing return on equity and return on revenues. For purposes of this discussion, only major pharmaceutical companies are represented, and diversified companies such as Johnson & Johnson have been excluded due to their emphasis on consumer products. While the return ratios indicate above average performance in the industry, it is important to note that overall sales results have decreased due to brand erosion of Prozac™ resulting from generic competition. However, Lilly’s reliance on Prozac™ as the company’s major revenue source has declined. Five of Lilly’s newer products achieved a 36 percent sales increase in 2001 from 2000 and accounted for 47 percent of net sales in 2001 (Eli Lilly Annual Report 2001). Lilly’s strong performance should continue given their anticipated product introductions over the next few years and continued growth of recently introduced brands.

Life After Prozac™ Lilly’s knowledge offering lies in their recognition and response when faced with the demise of their best-performing product, Prozac™. Anticipating patent expiration, they quickly reinvented their research and development processes to shorten drug development time, eliminate research on molecules with minimal potential, and engage in collaborative relationships. The Office of Alliance Management has proved to be a successful creation, managing the alliance process and garnering meaningful feedback to enhance performances of alliances. Lilly has received numerous accolades for their alliance management process (outlined in Table 3) demonstrating their core competency in this area. Moreover, emphasis on mutual dependency of partner performance has made their alliance strategy valuable and productive. An alliance with Takeda in promoting Actos™ has enabled them to expand their product offering in diabetes care successfully. Lastly, their joint venture with ICOS Corporation in developing Cialis™ proved successful through the clinical stage process and a New Drug Application (NDA ) is pending review and clearance by the FDA.
Looking Forward Lilly has proven that strategic alliances are a successful strategy alternative to consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry. While competitiveness is high in this industry, there are significant non-competitive pressures resulting from changes within the healthcare environment. Lilly is better prepared to take on these challenges since they are not contending with a dry pipeline, synergistic issues resulting from mergers, or a diversified business focus. Lilly must contend with two primary issues in order to continue its success—intellectual property rights and health care reform. Patent protection of a drug product generally exists between 8-10 years. The generic drug companies have become aggressive in their challenge of patents and are succeeding. Once a generic drug is commercially available the cost is significantly less, and the branded drug’s market share erodes quickly. Lilly’s patent on Prozac™ expired three years early, and once generic drugs became available, sales decreased 23 percent (Eli Lilly Annual Report 2001). Generic drug companies spend considerably less ($1 million versus over $500 million) to bring their products to market, thereby being able to profit from the research-based pharmaceutical company’s investment (Pharmaceutical Industry Primer 2001). The infringement on intellectual property rights affects the feasibility of new drug products since nine out of ten prescription drugs on the market evolve from researched-based companies. Lilly must engage in measures to ensure the integrity of their intellectual property. Without this security, it becomes less worthwhile to explore new drug development, which not only has consequences for Lilly but serious repercussions for the total health care system. Lilly has taken steps to contend with health care reform by introducing their discount card. However, public misconceptions concerning the costs of health care and the sources associated with those costs exist. Lilly must educate the public on the benefits of research-based pharmaceuticals as well as where increasing health care costs originate. As long as the public perceives pharmaceutical companies as the source for rising health care costs, generic competition will increase and health care mandates will result. Eli Lilly is poised to become the pharmaceutical growth company in this decade. As long as Lilly remains customer-centric, continues to align with promising partners, and tackles important environmental threats, they should be able to achieve this formidable challenge. The reinvention of their drug development process has proven their ability to overcome, providing them with a bountiful pipeline for success.
External Analysis
Apply the five forces model to the industry. What does it indicate about the industry?

Each of the five forces influences the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the forces represent opportunities or strengths for the industry—barriers to entry, rivalry among established firms and threat of substitute products. While the bargaining power of buyers denotes the greatest vulnerability for the industry, there are other elements, which traditionally have been strengths that potentially could be threats if not strategically managed effectively. The pharmaceutical industry enjoys high profitability and a strong return on equity (25 percent) compared with other industries (Saftlas, 2001). Eli Lilly’s return on equity has exceeded 45 percent in the past three years. The relationship of the five forces in the pharmaceutical industry is depicted in Figure 1, and the following provides a detailed explanation of how the elements of the five forces model impact the pharmaceutical industry.

The barriers to entry in the pharmaceutical industry are quite high. The average cost of developing and winning approval of a new drug is approximately $500-600 million (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, 2002). Even though this significant cost represents a tremendous barrier for new entrants to the pharmaceutical industry, several biotechnology and generics companies have entered the pharmaceutical arena. Biotechnology companies primarily have focused on developing drugs and then licensing or commercializing the product through established pharmaceutical companies. Biotechnology companies generally receive venture capital funding and then rely on milestone payments or licensing fees to continue developing new drug products. In recent years, several biotech firms have brought their own products to market. The big pharmaceutical companies are efficient at marketing their products, particularly through specialized sales forces concentrating on healthcare professionals, pharmacists, and direct-to-consumer advertising. This has allowed them to build brand loyalty both with physicians and their patients. Both the employment of a national sales force and the development and execution of healthcare and direct marketing programs are extremely costly for a new entrant to undertake without appropriate financing. Pharmaceutical companies also exhibit absolute cost advantages in that they enjoy patent protection on their drug products—typically an 8-10 year marketing period—in which time they are earning high profits. Since they earn higher profits during this protected time, they are in a position to funnel money back into their research and development efforts. New entrants may have difficulty in maintaining funding for current research yet alone earmarking funds for other projects. Pharmaceutical companies apply specialized manufacturing processes, allowing them to take advantage of economies of scale, putting new entrants at a significant cost disadvantage. Typically, switching costs are not a barrier to entry, but can arise in certain situations. When two drugs offer similar outcomes but one is a formulary drug (covered under insurance) and the other is not, the drug not covered is at an extreme disadvantage. The consumer incurs additional out-of-pocket expenses above their normal co-pay, and the physician is not likely to recommend a drug that is going to be more expensive for the consumer. Pharmaceutical companies must manage the acceptance of their drugs on the various formulary plans for insurance providers. In addition to acceptance on the formulary plan, companies have to manage the tier to which their product is assigned. The tier on which the drug is accepted also affects the payment the consumer will have to make. Otherwise, the pharmaceutical companies face a situation where physicians recommend other drug products over theirs due to cost implications for the patient. Smart pharmaceutical companies are able to manage these plans so their drug is the exclusive brand in the category. Government regulation is a major consideration for pharmaceutical companies. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) clears all drugs for use and most importantly limits the application of the drug through its labeling clearance. Currently, the pharmaceutical industry is lobbying for quicker application review timelines. The industry feels that the FDA tends to delay the clearance of applications, which limits their marketing period and profitability. The FDA denies that application review times are slow, and in fact, state that the average approval review period for 2001 was 14 months (Adams & Hensley, 2002). This is a significant improvement since 1993 when the median approval time was 26.9 months (Adams & Hensley, 2002). The FDA is cautious in this area since they do not want to delay the introduction of important new drug therapies for the public, but at the same time, they are held accountable for any mistakes that may occur. This was the situation a couple of years ago when the diabetes drug, Rezulin, was fast-tracked through the approval review process only later to be withdrawn from the market due to hundreds of deaths linked to the drug. The pharmaceutical industry is a consolidated industry, and each of the big pharmaceutical companies recognizes the power they can apply when working together. Through their organization, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, they lobby Congress for legislation that will have a positive impact on their industry. They also use this organization to combat challenges that may arise resulting in negative implications for the industry as a whole. The industry benefits from growing demand, particularly since the baby boomer population is aging. This leads to more ailments and health conditions requiring pharmaceutical treatment. Industry competition is high. Generic drug companies spend considerably less (approximately $1 million) to bring a generic version of a drug to market and represent a formidable competitive threat to pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the onslaught of generic competition has increased rivalry among the research-based pharmaceutical companies who now launch their own me-too products. Exit barriers for the industry are high. Companies have significant capital invested in plant and equipment with high fixed costs, such as severance for sales personnel. Consumers may be reliant on the company for treatment of their health condition if another suitable product is not available. Some of the larger pharmaceutical companies tend to be diversified in other related industries. While pharmaceutical companies enjoy having the negotiating power in situations when they are first-to-market with a breakthrough drug, this situation can change dramatically when other drugs offering the same benefits enter the market. There are several gatekeepers involved in the distribution channel for drug manufacturers. These are managed care organizations (MCOs), Medicare, physicians, and retailers. In today’s healthcare environment, it is imperative for a drug to gain acceptance on the formulary of managed care organizations as well as coverage through Medicare. MCOs are extremely cost-conscious and negotiate arduously when reviewing and evaluating a company’s drug. In recent years, MCOs have been trimming their formularies to contain costs and pharmaceutical companies are forced to discount their pricing in order to remain on an attractive tier of the formulary. This step is crucial to the distribution success of the drug since it affects the physician’s recommendation of the drug. Physicians generally will not recommend drugs off-formulary due to the cost burden to their patients unless there is no alternative. Retailers play a meaningful role as well since they do not want to undertake the expense of establishing a drug product in their system that will be limited in sales. Recent consolidations in the retail industry have concentrated the power of the retailers. Retailers want assurance that physicians will be recommending the product and this is evidenced by formulary acceptance. As mentioned earlier, drug manufacturers can control the distribution system when they come to market with a breakthrough product that will affect a large number of consumers. For example when Eli Lilly introduced Prozac and Pfizer introduced Viagra, both manufacturers held the power in negotiations with MCOs, Medicare, physicians, and retailers. They can only enjoy this position while they are the only supplier of the innovative product. Once similar product entries come to market, they lose their negotiating power. Ordinarily, substitute products do not affect the pharmaceutical industry. There is a growing awareness of alternative medicine to traditional drug therapies but the effectiveness of most of these methods has yet to be proven. Alternative methods also tend to be more popular with younger individuals. Since the largest segment of the population—baby boomers—are aging this has not yet become a concern for the pharmaceutical industry. There is a focus among pharmaceutical companies to refine drug therapies trying to limit the adverse side effects. Complementing products do exist in the pharmaceutical market but are usually limited to the management of a disease or condition and do not necessarily apply to all forms of drug therapies. For instance, in the management of diabetes, an individual will measure their blood sugar with a blood glucose monitor. The result will indicate if they need to take insulin or an oral medication if that is their prescribed therapy. There have been innovations in insulin delivery methods making it more convenient and less painful for individuals than injecting insulin, which was the traditional method for quite some time. These methods include insulin pumps, which are similar looking to pagers, and insulin pens containing a pre-measured dose of insulin. This has enhanced Lilly’s position since they market insulin, and physicians have begun prescribing insulin therapy instead of oral medication due to these new device innovations.
What is the impact of macro-environment on industry? The macro-environment is having a profound impact on the pharmaceutical industry. A threat from the technological environment for the pharmaceutical industry is the impact of biotechnology. Due to the bust of the dot.com era, venture capitalists (VCs) have been eager to return to solid investments in companies that have viable products and business models. The biotechnology segment has gained much attention from VCs and is reaping the benefits of large capital investments. This enables the biotechnology firms to continue investing in new research and development as some of their other drug therapies continue along the clinical trial phases. There are now over 300 publicly trade companies in the United States developing novel medicines using biotechnology. In fact, biotech companies have approximately 100 drugs in Phase III (final stage) FDA clinical studies (O’Keefe, 2002). This will bring a flood of new drug products onto the market over the next few years—not from the big pharmaceutical companies. In addition to the biotech threat, the generic drug makers are challenging the big pharmaceutical companies. The generic makers are capitalizing on the negative social perceptions of the pharmaceutical manufacturers—making big profits at the expense of the consumer. They have been successful in rallying consumer advocacy groups by getting out the message that patent protection stalls the arrival of less expensive drug alternatives. From a social standpoint, the healthcare environment has been in need of an overhaul for several years. This is a massive undertaking that will have direct implications on pharmaceutical manufacturers as MCOs continue to pressure them for better pricing. Political and legal factors also have a major effect on the level of opportunities and threats in the environment. As mentioned earlier, the FDA has a primary role in regulating the pharmaceutical industry, but this agency is not the only one that influences the industry. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the U.S. Judicial system monitor the industry. The applicability of patents have been challenged by generic drug makers, threatening the profitability of the big pharmaceutical companies. Patents of Eli Lilly, American BioScience and Bristol-Myers Squibb are just a few that recently have been challenged legally—all with victories for the generic drug makers. Lilly’s patent battle loss for Prozac has a major affect on their earnings potential now that generic forms of Prozac are available. These patent inquiries have also sparked a broad investigation of anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry by the FTC. Furthermore, the changing demographic environment has a positive impact on the industry. The largest growing segment of the population is baby boomers providing an opportunity for heightened usage of drug therapies. Lilly has responded by ramping up new drug development increasing both its research & development budget and its resources of scientists.
How dynamic is the industry? Is there any indication that innovation is reshaping competition or has done so in the recent past? The pharmaceutical industry is very dynamic. Companies must stay focused on the constant changes in the political, industrial, and social environments to remain competitive. Pharmaceutical companies must pass all of their products through stringent FDA requirements. Part of the political climate involves lobbying the government on upcoming concerns, such as, the use of cheaper generics to lower the cost of prescription drugs for the elderly. Developing new products is a high cost endeavor and the return on the next super drug(s) has to be large to make up for the development costs. Pharmaceutical companies are looking for answers for every type of human ailment or disease. Only large companies have the funds to finance these developmental operations. Patents are needed to protect the investment of time and money into these new products so the organization that developed the product can recoup their investment. The need for low-cost pharmaceuticals has caused many generic manufacturers to sue the developing company on their patents and in some cases shorten the patent the company holds before other companies can begin producing these products. This dynamic has the largest effect on the big pharmaceutical companies. With the need for lower-cost prescription drugs and the ability for generic brand makers to deliver those costs, larger pharmaceutical companies must find ways to protect their investments while delivering a reasonable cost to the public for their products. The social implications can be significant if the profits cannot be expected by those who develop the product. We must ask what will be the incentive for development if there is not ample reward. Innovation is the lifeblood of the pharmaceutical industry. All of these products must be developed, they do not occur naturally, and if they do they must still be modified and manufactured to certain regulatory ideals. The environment in the industry has been to be the first to discover the new super-drug. Eli Lilly has been able to market Prozac since 1988, with all the subsequent profits, and all pharmaceutical companies are waiting for the next big score. Eli Lilly operates in a very innovative business environment. As a result of the social and political environment, Lilly finds their product life cycles shortened due to the attack on their patents by the generic pharmaceutical companies.
What stage of lifecycle and implications for intensity of competition? The pharmaceutical industry is a mature industry with consolidations occurring since the early 1990s. The intensity of competition is high, as each pharmaceutical company attempts to be the first-to-market with breakthrough products. Additionally, as soon as patent expiration occurs on lucrative branded drugs, generic and me-too products are launched. Competition increases during this stage, since each company tries to capture market share from the branded drug. Companies concentrate on creating awareness and interest through their direct sales forces and direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns. Generic companies, on the other hand, gain leverage through reduced pricing to managed care organizations.
Is the industry becoming more global, and what is the implication for competitive intensity? The pharmaceutical industry is a global industry. Global competition can be more intense than national competition due to the regulatory and legal implications in various countries. Companies must be experts in following the regulatory guidelines of the various countries which they distribute their drug products. Intellectual property and its protection are of primary concern and many legal methods are taken to ensure the integrity of their patents. Due to the strain on the national health care environment and insurance financing, companies must seize every opportunity to expand their profit base, which includes globalization. Attempts are being made to both improve health insurance financing nationally and boost the international competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry.
Internal Analysis

Identify whether your company has a competitive advantage or disadvantage in its primary industry. (Its primary industry is the one in which it has the most sales.)

Eli Lilly has a competitive advantage in the pharmaceutical industry since its establishment in 1876. The company has sustained its competitive advantage through its dedication to develop and acquire innovative pharmaceutical products that enable people to live longer, healthier and more active lives. Eli Lilly’s strategy is based on its internal capabilities in innovation and sales and marketing with external alliances. Its research, development, clinical capabilities and marketing strategy made it successful for Eli Lilly to bring to the market new important drugs. Eli Lilly is seeking new alliances to join with researchers and organizations to discover, develop and market new pharmaceutical products. Eli Lilly is balancing its internal capabilities with its external alliances around the globe in an effort to address the needs of their customers more effectively. Eli Lilly’s 2001 annual report shows that the company’s worldwide net sales increased 17 percent in 2001. Net sales for 2000 were $10,862.2 million, for 2001 net sales is $11,542.5 million. Eli Lilly’s net income also increases from the year ended 2000 at $2,904.6 million to $3,013.9 at year ended of 2001. Lilly was also shown as one of the top leading 20 pharmaceutical corporations in 2000. It has a growth of 11 percent and a 2.9 percent share of the world market in the pharmaceutical industry.
Evaluate your company against the four generic building blocks of competitive advantage: efficiency, quality, innovation and customer responsiveness. How does this exercise help you understand the performance of you company relative to its competitors? Efficiency, quality, customer responsiveness, and innovation are important elements in obtaining a competitive advantage. Eli Lilly increases the perception of value through differentiation. While, efficiency is a key ingredient in gaining a competitive advantage, it is not a component of Eli Lilly’s strategy. Eli Lilly’s products are reliable in the sense that they do the job they were designed for and do it well. By providing high-quality products they have increased the value of those products in the eyes of consumers; this enhanced perception of value allows Lilly to charge a premium for its products. Lilly’s products are required to meet quality specifications instituted by the Food & Drug Administration. While the FDA automatically requires standardized quality, this does not satisfy Lilly. The company has concentrated on quality evaluation since 1886; it looks beyond the traditional methods of testing. The blockbuster drug Prozac is an example of Lilly’s commitment to quality. Prozac has done the job it was designed for by enabling a countless number of people to successfully combat depression. Even today more uses for the drug are being introduced to enable people to live happier lives. Innovation is Eli Lilly’s principal objective because it is perhaps the single most important building block of competitive advantage and an extremely important component for the pharmaceutical industry. By definition innovation gives a company something unique—something its competitors lack. Uniqueness allows a company to differentiate itself from its rivals and charge a premium price (Hill, 2001). Eli Lilly is constantly looking to advance in the kinds of products (medicines) it produces and continue to successfully compete competitively. Recently, Lilly was under some pressure because they lost their patent on Prozac. Prozac contributed company sales of 35 percent. CEO, Taurel has rapidly ramped up new-drug development since his hire. He increased the research and development budget by about 30%, to more than $2.2 billion, hired 700 scientists in the last year alone, and in a search for the next blockbuster. According to Taurel, “Lilly now has a medicine cabinet stocked full of promising new drugs, including treatment for schizophrenia.” The important decisions made by Taurel will allow Lilly to continue innovating, which will provide the company with another valuable piece to the competitive advantage puzzle. To achieve superior customer responsiveness, Eli Lilly must be able to do a better job than its competitors of identifying and satisfying the needs of its customers, customize goods and services to the unique demands of individual customers, and reduce customer response time (Hill, 2001). It refers to the time it takes for a good to be delivered. Lilly concentrates on the unmet medical needs of people. Everyday the company strives to exceed customers’ expectations throughout the world by working creatively to understand their needs. Unfortunately, Lilly cannot guarantee when its product will reach the market. An educated estimate is a better route because the FDA must first approve the product before it is distributed. Some new drug applications require extra time to review due to the fact they are up to 81,414 pages long. Lilly emphasizes the differences between itself and its competitors; similar medications; because each may have different side effects that could influence potential buyers. Lilly gathers feedback from users or distributors allowing them to better meet customers’ needs.
What are the distinctive competencies of your company? Eli Lilly’s distinctive competency is managing innovation in its drug development process. After Sidney Taurel become the CEO and chairman of Lilly in 1998, he ramped up new drug development and increased the research and development budget approximately 30% to more than $2.2 billion and hired 700 scientists. Additionally, Lilly aspires to be the premier pharmaceutical partner and has implemented an alliance management strategy to achieve this goal. This strategy further enhances their drug development capabilities. Lilly now has a medicine cabinet full of promising new drugs, including treatments for schizophrenia and for sepsis. Lilly has good capabilities of coordinating its resources and putting them to productive use that manage Lilly’s distinctive competency. Eli Lilly achieves their goal of competitive advantage by using Lilly’s resources to develop first-in-class or best-in-class drugs.
What role have prior strategies played in shaping the distinctive competencies of your company? What role has luck played? Prior strategies have played a pivotal role in helping Lilly form its distinctive competency. As with the other big pharmaceutical companies, Lilly’s strategy has focused on creating and developing significant new drug therapies for commercialization. In order to achieve this strategy, Lilly appropriates considerable funding to their research and development efforts as well as continuously increasing their human resources capability in this area. While internal research and development efforts are the foundation for success, Lilly recognizes the importance of expanding their horizon of successfulness. Lilly acknowledges there are many innovative companies in the biotechnology field that can assist them in the realization of their strategy. Many of the other big pharmaceutical companies recognize this opportunity as well and aggressively pursue acquisition of biotechnology companies. Lilly has taken a different approach in this regard, which has allowed them to use more effectively their capabilities and resources (human and financial). Lilly is not interested in building an empire but more concerned with building partnerships. Therefore, they do not subject themselves to the negative implications that coincide with acquisitions but endorse the value of building strong alliances instead. In an effort to bring significant medical breakthrough to market, Lilly is industriously pursuing an alliance strategy in addition to their own research and development efforts. This builds upon their fundamental strategy but employs another methodology to help them achieve their underlying goal. Lilly’s distinctive competency of becoming the premier pharmaceutical partner will ultimately help them realize their strategy in bringing significant medical breakthroughs to market. Strong alliances are crucial since no one company employs all the expertise to bring to market medical solutions for all unmet medical needs. However, Lilly increases their chances of success by aligning themselves with partners that perform medical research in mutual areas of interest.

We do not believe that luck has played a role in Lilly’s development of their distinctive competency. Building strong alliances does not just happen but rather employs processes, systems, and feedback in order to work effectively. Lilly has developed a distinctive approach in building and managing their alliances to ensure successful achievement of the alliance’s objectives. Building strong alliances takes work not luck. This is evidenced by the recent situation arising between Bristol-Myers Squibb and ImClone Systems. Their alliance is in jeopardy due to Bristol-Myers’ desire to restructure their agreement after the FDA rejected ImClone’s drug application. If their alliance had been stronger, ImClone would have used Bristol-Myers’ experience with the FDA to assist them with their application process. In developing their distinctive competency, Lilly has created an organization to manage their alliance relationships, which helps avoid these types of situations. With over 140 collaborations in process, Lilly increases their chances of commercializing breakthrough medical products.

Do the strategies currently pursued by your company build on its distinctive competencies? Is there an attempt to build new competencies? A major strategy for Eli Lilly is to develop its own pharmaceutical products without acquiring other companies get to these products. The costs of this process are expensive and time consuming. We have established that the major distinctive competence of Eli Lilly is their alliance management process. They develop alliances from R&D, commercial, and manufacturing perspectives. They improve upon this process by continually monitoring it through their Voice of the Alliance system. This system uses a combination of inputs to develop data that shows the success level of alliances. Through their leadership position in building strategic alliances, Eli Lilly supports its major strategy for developing new products. These alliances allow each company to develop products and processes more efficiently with the old idea that two heads are better than one. A recent alliance between Eli Lilly, Indiana University, and Purdue University has been established for the study of Proteomics (the study of proteins). Through this alliance, Lilly expands its distinctive competency and supports their strategy of innovation. The development of new competencies is more difficult to see. Eli Lilly has been developing and improving its strategic alliances for almost 80 years. It’s clear by the 2.2 billion increase in its R & D, and the hiring of 700 new scientists over the last five years, that Eli Lilly is dedicated to developing its own products. An opportunity exists here to use these resources more effectively. It seems that Eli Lilly concentrates on continual development of existing competencies, such as, strategic alliances, remaining a top employer, and innovation verse acquisition.
Functional Analysis
Is your company carrying out efficiency-enhancing or quality-enhancing practices that might impact on its competitiveness? Efficiency in the pharmaceutical industry translates into product development. New product development costs between $600 million and $1 billion dollars. Eli Lilly, as stated in previous group papers, is a leader in alliance development with other, usually smaller, related companies. These relationships offer Eli Lilly a more efficient method of developing new products as well as broadening their base of products to diversify their revenue stream. These practices enhance Eli Lilly’s competitiveness. Quality in the pharmaceutical industry is monitored through the FDA. Each new product undergoes rigorous clinical trials to prove efficacy in order to receive market clearance from the FDA. Testing is conducted in phases in labs, animals, and finally with human participants. Additionally, the FDA conducts periodic audits of manufacturing facilities. If facilities are not in compliance, serious repercussions may occur including having the drug pulled from the market. Even though quality is monitored by the FDA, Eli Lilly goes beyond what is required. Quality values were instilled in the company culture from the company’s inception. Lilly employees continually seek out new methods for quality standards and evaluation. It is not cost-effective or in any pharmaceutical company’s best interest to maintain poor quality standards since legal and brand equity implications have serious financial consequences. Eli Lilly improves its efficiency and quality by its recognition as a top employer. A cornerstone of Lilly’s philosophy is that its employees are the company’s most valuable assets. By maintaining strong, long-term relationships throughout the organization, the seasoned employees offer a higher degree of understanding of company standards and goals. The organization is committed to quality which translates into a positive impact on Eli Lilly’s competitiveness.
Is your company carrying out pursuing any innovation-enhancing practices that might impact its competitiveness? Innovation is the life-blood of pharmaceutical companies and this is no exception for Eli Lilly. The company continually increases its investment in their own research and development (R&D) efforts. Their investments include both human and financial by expanding its resource capabilities in adding 700 scientists, and increasing its R&D investment to $2 billion in 2000, an increase of 13% increase from the previous year. This represents a higher investment in R&D than industry average as a percent of sales. This continuous investment has led to great strides in their attainment of development and research-productivity targets. Nearly all their molecules in development have proved to be potentially viable drug candidates in early phase trials. One of Lilly’s core strengths is in the development and production of natural protein medicines. Discovering proteins for use in fighting major diseases has been enhanced with the recent advances in the human genome project. Lilly is ready to capitalize on their expertise in identifying proteins and their affect on genes and transforming these discoveries into drug products. In addition to their own R&D efforts, Eli Lilly has concentrated on enhancing new opportunities through partnerships. They currently have over 100 scientific collaborations contributing to their product pipeline increasing their chances for commercialization of viable drug therapies. Since they primarily focus on building alliances with companies in their late-stage compound development, Lilly shortens their time to market with these alliances. In fact, Eli Lilly anticipates launching 10 new products from 2001-2004, which is a significant amount of product launches for a pharmaceutical company in such a short timeframe. We concur with several analysts in their assessment that Eli Lilly’s innovation practices have provided them with one of the most bountiful near-term pipeline in the pharmaceutical industry.
Is your company pursuing any practices designed to enhance customer-responsiveness that might impact its competitiveness? Eli Lilly pursues practices designed to enhance its customer-responsiveness, which ultimately affects its competitiveness. The heart of Eli Lilly’s corporate strategy involves developing healthcare solutions that allow people to live longer, healthier lives. Lilly employs practices focused on customer-responsiveness by speeding up their delivery of vital drug therapies to the market. Lilly primarily concentrates on developing drug therapies for medical conditions that currently do not have a therapeutic option available to customers. Lilly researches medical conditions and explores opportunities in areas where a significant number of people are affected with the condition. While it has been important to implement strategies to improve customer responsiveness in drug development, it is equally important for them to elevate their sales and marketing efforts. To make their products readily available to customers, Eli Lilly increased their global sales force by adding approximately 2,000 new sales representatives. Similarly, experienced marketing professionals were recruited and hired to support their growing product line. These additions enhance Eli Lilly’s ability to communicate effectively the benefits of their drug therapies to both healthcare professionals and patients, responding more rapidly to concerns. Lilly offers continuing education programs for healthcare professionals in a variety of formats making it convenient. Lilly also created a new division, e.Lilly, dedicated to providing important health information to patients. Lilly created an interactive website that allows patients to ask questions of healthcare professionals and track their medical conditions for certain disease states. In response to customers’ growing concerns, Eli Lilly is actively supporting Medicare reform, particularly for inclusion of drug benefits. Given the practices described above, we believe Eli Lilly maintains a leadership role in the area of customer responsiveness in the pharmaceutical industry.
Can you identify any other functional strategies pursued by your company that might impact its competitiveness? An element that was briefly touched upon earlier was the e.Lilly program. This concept is a broad undertaking harnessing the potential of information technology to redefine the way Lilly operates. The e.lilly program is an information-driven project that encompasses nearly all functions of the business. It is being used to redesign basic operational processes in finance and accounting, and to establish e.procurement with vendors, partners and distributors (90% of all transactions occur in this manner). Informal networks have been created to facilitate sharing of know-how among colleagues and databases have been developed to support and enhance the productivity of alliances. Lilly manages their clinical trials through this web-based program, speeding the time for retrieval and analysis of information pertaining to approximately 500-1000 participants. It is also used to manage customer relationships by providing 26 product or disease-related web sites providing product and health information. Sales representatives even use it to e.detail physicians that do not have time for an in-office visit. The e.lilly concept is streamlining the way the company works together and manages the information at its disposal. As more processes come on-line, the company becomes more efficient which leads to better innovation and quality as knowledge is shared making them more competitive.
Evaluate the competitive position of your company and explain what, if anything, the company needs to do to improve its competitive position. Eli Lilly has a highly competitive position in the pharmaceutical industry. They have demonstrated superior quality, efficiency, customer responsiveness, and innovation. Their distinctive competency in managing drug innovation through their own R&D efforts and their alliances has enabled them to discover and develop more drug candidates and shorten their commercialization time. An area of growing concern for the pharmaceutical industry in general and one with which Eli Lilly was recently confronted is the implication of generic drug manufacturers. While Eli Lilly has taken corrective action to ensure that their revenue is not primarily dependent upon the sales of one drug, they must take additional action to protect their intellectual property rights. As exclusively periods are shortened, the financial ramifications are devastating both in recouping the development costs and for future investment in R&D efforts. Eli Lilly must strengthen and monitor its patent portfolio to prevent another Prozac disaster and safeguard its new product line. The Regulatory and Legal Affairs functional unit in should ensure that Eli Lilly is prepared to deal with these issues. This team should possess superior knowledge in the area of intellectual property protection rights, including patent protection for pharmaceutical products. The pharmaceutical industry is dependent upon this protection to bring new lifesaving drugs to patients around the world, and at the same time recoup the millions of dollars that the companies invested to discover and develop the new drugs.
Business-Level Strategy
How differentiated are the products/services of your company? What is the basis of their differentiated appeal? Eli Lilly manufactures and distributes one type of product—pharmaceuticals. These products are differentiated based on either human or animal consumption. The products further are distinguished based on their application for use in particular drug therapies. Since the greatest reward and profit potential is in discovering and commercializing first-in-class drugs, Lilly’s primary focus in differentiation lies in discovering new drug therapies. Lilly also introduces best-in-class drugs in markets where drug therapies already exist when Lilly’s product has proven better efficacy and minimized side effects for consumers. They continue to differentiate products by finding other use applications, such as creating Sarafem from a derivative of the Prozac formulation.
What is your company’s strategy toward market segmentation? If it segments its market, on what basis does it do so? Eli Lilly’s strategy towards market segmentation is based on the end user of the product—human or animal. Their animal pharmaceutical products are a small percentage of their sales so we will focus on segmentation for humans. Lilly focuses on introducing drugs in therapeutic classes with the greatest market potential. This is achieved in two ways—either the market does not already have an existing therapy or the size of the market allows potential for more than one therapy. Due to the market potential associated with disease management, Lilly segments their market in the following therapeutic classes: endocrinology, cardiovascular, infectious disease, neuroscience, oncology, and osteoporosis. In each of these categories, Lilly markets two or more drug products and plans to introduce several products in these classes within the next two years. Lilly commercializes drug products outside the scope of these therapeutic classes when there is an unmet medical need or their product performs better than currently available drug therapies. This allows Lilly to maximize its profit potential by being the only provider of a drug therapy for a limited period.
What distinctive competencies does your company have? Is efficiency, quality, innovation, responsiveness to customers, or a combination of these factors the main driving force in your company? Lilly’s distinctive competency is its ability to manage drug innovation. Lilly has the strong ability to identify high potential drug candidates by continually improving their research and development processes. For example, in the 1960s Lilly launched the first of a long line of oral and injectable antibiotics in a new class called cephalosporins. This example is one of many “first to” accomplishments produced by Lilly. Also, they are investing in new research technologies and research alliances worldwide to gain access to new research capabilities and additional promising compounds. As a result, the company will have the opportunity to obtain additional patents. As mentioned previously, quality, innovation, and customer responsiveness are the main driving forces of Eli Lilly. Lilly’s focus is on the unmet medical needs of people and the speed in which they deliver vital drug therapies to the market. In addition, high quality is a top priority, and Lilly goes beyond the requirements of the FDA. The company has always been centered on product innovation and has recently taken measures to ensure their continued success.
Based on these product/market/distinctive-competency choices, what generic business-level strategy is your company pursuing? Eli Lilly meets all three criteria—quality, innovation, and responsiveness to customers—for a differentiated strategy. Their products definitely will be perceived as unique by customers because they are mostly new or improved products that meet some major medical ailment. As stated earlier, they strive to be a leader in many areas of the pharmaceutical market by providing products to meet a variety of medical conditions.
What are the advantages and disadvantages associated with your company’s choice of business-level strategy? The advantages associated with a differentiation strategy are, brand loyalty, unique products, low buyer power, assumption of increased pricing, and due to all of these factors a barrier for other companies to enter. Brand loyalty allows the organization to continue sales based on the perceived value of the name on the product. Eli Lilly has Prozac, which has many generic competitors now, but may have some good name recognition in the public eye. When you have a unique product such as Prozac, the organization knows that it has the only product and sells it at a premium. This situation creates low buyer power, as the purchasers really do not have other choices for the product. If the cost of production increases then the organization can pass those costs along to the consumer. Because of this environment, a high barrier of entry for new competitors exists. It would be difficult and expensive for a new company to develop a different or unique product to compete. The disadvantages associated with a differentiation strategy are maintaining uniqueness, ability to maintain first to market status, eroding of brand loyalty and ease of imitation. In the pharmaceutical market, all of these negatives can come to play with the generic drug companies. These generic companies offer a major challenge to Eli Lilly as they aggressively attack patents that protect the first to market status and the revenue from that advantage. They also are a problem with brand loyalty, uniqueness, and ease of imitation. After the patent has been lost, the generic companies can saturate the market with quality imitations that erode the brand loyalty advantage.
How could you improve its business-level strategy to strengthen its competitive advantage? Rivalry among the pharmaceutical industry primarily is driven by being the first to patent a new drug and to achieve a first-mover advantage, the advantage of being the first to market new product. An improvement in drug innovation can strengthen Lilly’s competitive advantage. Lilly has undertaken several significant steps to manage their drug innovation-increasing internal R&D financial and human resources as well as creating strong alliances. In order to strengthen its competitive advantage, Lilly must focus on increasing its human resources knowledge in the area of patent law. Lilly lost its patent on Prozac two years earlier than expected which cost Lilly billions of dollars in sales revenue. This could have been prevented if Lilly had better competence in their management of their intellectual property rights. Eli Lilly is currently involved in more than 140 research and development collaboration with leading companies and universities. The 2000 R&D expenditures reports shows that Eli Lilly had increase its investment from the previous year at the amount of $234.9 million dollars. The total R&D investment in the last five years from continuing operations is $8,100.7 million. The average cost to discover and develop a new drug is more than $500 million dollars and the average length of time from discovery to patient is 15 years.
Corporate-Level Strategy

Assess the potential for your company to create value through vertical integration. In reaching your assessment, also consider the bureaucratic costs of managing vertical integration. It is possible that Lilly could benefit from upstream integration by owning or controlling the chemicals or ingredients that go into its products. Many of these components would find their way into competitor products and would cause a cash flow even when Lilly competitors were making their products. This strategy would help maintain quality standards throughout product development and manufacture while creating a possible entry barrier for other companies to enter the market. There may be cost disadvantages to purchasing these chemical/compound companies as it may be cheaper to purchase the materials from a supplier than the cost related to running the manufacturing process yourself. Running these newly acquired companies could take management away from concentrating on its major goal of creating new pharmaceutical drugs. Downstream integration has not seemed to work for Lilly as they sold there health-care management subsidiary PCS in 1999. Lilly has developed a strong sales force that generates an understanding to the HMO’s and physicians that will be the distributors of the products. There doesn’t seem to be a great upside in any downstream endeavors.
On the basis of your assessment in question 3, do you think your company should (a) outsource some operations that are currently performed in-house or (b) bring some operations in-house that are currently outsourced? Justify your recommendations. Based on question 3, Lilly could benefit from upstream integration by owning or controlling the chemicals or ingredients that go into its products. By bringing this operation that are currently outsourced, Lilly and Company can increase profit and gain ability to learn from activity and the opportunity to transform it into a distinctive competency. The disadvantage of this action is that its might weakens Lilly’s concentrates scarce human, financial, and physical resources on further weakening its core or distinctive competencies.
Is your company currently involved in any long-term cooperative relationships with suppliers or buyers? If so, how are these relationships structured? If so, how are these relationships add value to the company? Why? Eli Lilly is involved in long-term cooperative relationships with suppliers and buyers. The supplier relationships include other pharmaceutical companies from which Lilly has formed alliances. For example: Takeda Chemical Industries, Elanco, and Dista. The buyer relationships include wholesalers, and insurance companies as well as HMOs. All of these relationships are structured using contracts. Eli Lilly’s long-term contracts with suppliers and buyers add value to the company by allowing it to seek ways of lowering the costs and raising the quality of their products. This has enabled Lilly to avoid the bureaucratic costs linked to ownership. Hence, Lilly’s long-term contracts have substituted for vertical integration.
Is there any potential for your company to enter into (additional) long-term cooperative relationships with suppliers or buyers? If so, how might these relationships be structured? Eli Lilly has the potential of entering into additional long-term cooperative relationships with suppliers or buyers. Lilly’s experience with research and development alliances goes back almost 80 years. Their strategy focuses on the augmentation of their internal capabilities in innovation of sales and marketing with external alliances. Innovation is not limited to any one company; Lilly is continuously searching the globe for additions to their capabilities. Lilly is leveraging their internal capabilities with manufacturing alliances around the globe to be closer to their customers and to better meet customer needs. At Lilly, alliances are crucial to the company’s long-term success because it is the preferred way of developing new products. This approach is called research without walls. Putting together the right partnership requires not only commitment of all parties to the alliance, but also the right structure for sharing value when the partnership succeeds. Lilly manages their alliance by integrating an approach based on four principles: (1) establishing alliances in the corporate strategy of the partners, meaning thinking through the strategic rationale for an alliance from the partner’s perspective (2) create business processes that can be applied from one alliance to the next alliance (3) actively capture and manage the knowledge capital (4) shape and develop participants capabilities to ensure a positive relationship, defining the right roles and responsibilities specific to alliance management.
Is your company currently trying to transfer skills or realize economies of scope by entering into strategic alliances with other companies? If so, how are these relationships structured? Do you think that these relationships add value to the company? Why? Eli Lilly does realize economies of scope through strategic alliances. Currently, Lilly is involved in approximately 140 collaborations or strategic alliances. These alliances span the functions of product commercialization, manufacturing, and research and development. Each of their alliances allows them to realize economies of scope by sharing costs with their partners and gaining knowledge and experience through the alliance process. Strategic alliances are critical for Eli Lilly’s achievement of company goals. To strengthen their position, Lilly created an Office of Alliance Management whose responsibility it is to ensure the individual successes of each of the alliances for both Lilly and its partners. The formation of alliances involves evaluating the alliance potential—in other words does Lilly already possess the resources and capabilities to manage this project on their own or would they better obtain their objectives through the formation of an alliance. A full-time staff is dedicated to evaluating these opportunities for Lilly and annually reviews over 1,000 proposals. Lilly uses three criteria when evaluating potential alliances: strategic, operational, and cultural fit. If an alliance is determined to meet these criteria and can satisfy a Lilly objective then the process moves forward with negotiation for terms of the agreement. The Office of Alliance Management takes over the implementation process for the alliance. An alliance champion is assigned as well as a senior executive sponsor who is responsible for the oversight and support for the alliance. Lilly emphasizes the importance of the alliance and commitment from management by assigning a senior executive to the team. In addition to developing processes for alliance management, Lilly established training programs for employees participating in alliances to further ensure alliance success. Over 450 Lilly employees have participated in these training programs. The first step after alliance formation is to clearly define the strategic intent of the alliance and then identify and align the best use of resources and capabilities for both partners. Lilly measures the progress and success of alliances through feedback tools on an annual and ongoing basis. The results of these measurement tools provide the necessary information to modify alliance activities in order to increase their effectiveness. Specific action plans are implemented to address voiced concerns. We do believe that Lilly’s use of alliances adds value to the company. During the evaluation phase, Lilly ensures that a potential partner’s strategy coincides with their corporate strategy. Lilly is not myopic in their alliance management and acknowledges the mutual objectives of the alliance, which leads to a smoother and more effective alliance. This is evidenced by the fact that partners continue to work with them on new projects when typically 60% of all alliances fail. Lilly’s commercial agreement with Takeda Pharmaceuticals allowed them to launch a new diabetes drug, Actos, even though they did not develop it. The introduction of Actos allowed Lilly to expand their product offering in endocrine drug therapies and generated over $200 million in net sales. Since drug development is so costly (approximately $800 million to bring a new drug to market), Lilly enhances their competitive position by expanding the scope of their activities, particularly research and development, through strategic alliances.
Strategy Implementation
Does your company have a centralized or a decentralized approach to decision making? How do you know? We spoke with a person in the Human Resource department who told us that Lilly’s approach to decision making is decentralized. The delegation of the authority is divided to divisions, functions, and managers and workers at lower levels in the organization. The advantages of delegating authority are aiding in the process of making more effective decisions, motivation and accountability increase in lower level managers, and fewer managers are needed to overlook the activities of employees.
Based on the analysis of your company’s level of differentiation and integration, would you say your company is coordinating and motivating its people and subunits effectively? Why or why not? Yes, we believe Eli Lilly is coordinating and motivating its people and subunits effectively. Eli Lilly is committed to research and development by investing millions of dollars each year in the quest to discover and develop innovative medicines. Lilly’s willingness to contribute to action shows coordination and motivation toward its people and subunits. Lilly’s research division, Lilly Research Laboratories (LRL), is in charge for discovery, development, and clinical evaluation of their pharmaceutical products and for providing ongoing scientific support for marketed products. LRL has more than 6,000 people from a wide variety of scientific disciplines who work in laboratories in the United States and at other locations around the world. They have a many motivated scientists working for them. In addition, Lilly conducts clinical research in approximately 70 countries around the world. Lilly is presently involved in more than 140 research and development collaborations with leading companies and universities. At the same time, Lilly continues to pursue innovative science and new opportunities beyond their targeted disease categories. Furthermore, Lilly continually pursues cutting-edge science and technology from external, as well as internal, sources. Today, they are relying on research partnerships to battle some diseases on multiple fronts. Lilly is committed to establishing relationships with third parties to supplement and enhance its internal capabilities. They are assertively seeking strategic alliances that facilitate development and commercialization of novel products to the mutual benefit of Lilly and their partners. Lilly’s contribution toward their company as well as their partners shows how motivated and committed they are toward its people and subunits.

What role does the top-management team play in creating the culture of your organization? Can you identify the characteristic norms and values that describe the way people behave in your organization? How does the design of the organizations structure affect its culture? Based on information obtained on the Lilly website it would seem that top-management is very involved in creating the culture of the organization. The values depicted on the website that relate to the company’s core values are reprinted here: • Respect for people that includes our concern for the interests of all people worldwide who touch — or are touched by — our company: customers, employees, shareholders, partners and communities; • Integrity that embraces the very highest standards of honesty, ethical behavior and exemplary moral character; • Excellence that is reflected in our continuous search for new ways to improve the performance of our business to become the best at what we do. These ideas represent the face that Lilly likes to put forward to the public. But without an insiders point of view it would be difficult to describe how these outward values manifest inside the company. We assume that Lilly has an adaptive culture, especially in the R & D areas, based on the innovation that must take place in the pharmaceutical industry. The following are remarks from a speech delivered by Eli Lilly CEO Sidney Taurel on March 7, 2001 at the 55th Annual Indiana University Business Conference, Taurel was discussing the future of the business landscape as a melding of the “new” economy of high tech versus the old economy of established “has-beens” of the DOW, his comments are reprinted here: “In a nutshell, I believe the winners are, and will continue to be, those firms that apply old-economy business discipline to new-economy opportunities. Regardless of their age, size, or industry, they share the following traits First, they are opportunistic adopters and, in many cases, creators of new technologies. They exploit information technology to change the way they operate internally and the way they connect externally. Second, they foster cultures that promote the independent, creative thinking that enables their organizations to deliver more value to their customers - and the risk-taking and continuous learning that keep them ahead of their competitors. And, third, the winners have the business discipline to turn their innovations into tangible financial results. They deliver strong, ongoing earnings growth. This attitude seems to support that at the highest-level Lilly has the attitude that is consistent with an adaptive culture.”
To what degree is there a match between your company’s structure and its control and incentive systems? That is, are its control systems allowing it to operate its structure effectively? How could they improve? Eli Lilly has engineered its structure to a product-team structure. Tasks are divided along product lines to reduce costs and to increase management’s ability to monitor and control the manufacturing process. Stable cross-functional teams are formed right at the beginning of the product–development process so that any difficulties that arise can be worked out early. The use of cross-functional teams speeds up innovation because when authority is decentralized to the team, decisions can be make more rapidly (Hill, 2001). Lilly uses the output control system of management by objectives (MBO). Managers establish specific goals and objectives at each level of the organization. The goals are determined jointly between managers and subordinates to assign appropriate and feasible objectives. After specific goals are set managers become accountable for meeting them; therefore, they sit down periodically with their subordinates and evaluate their progress. To attain goals upper management supplies an operating budget to lower management. Then, in accordance with budget allowances Lilly provides incentives in the to its sales department, which are given when MBO objectives are met or exceeded. We believe that Lilly’s MBO control system is allowing the company to operate its product-team structure effectively. Both systems have a great reputation for success when executed properly. The company might consider studying the effects of and consider providing incentives for other departments besides its sales teams.

References

Adams, C, & Hensley, S. (2002, January 29). Drug makers plan to push the FDA to move quicker with approvals. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 8, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1012256019303719720.djm,00.html

Arndt, Michael. (2001, July 23). Eli Lilly: Life After Prozac. Business Week.

Eli Lilly. (2001). Annual Report—Promise.

Eli Lilly. (2002). General information obtained from the World Wide Web: http://www.elililly.com

Hill, C. W. L., Jones, G. R. (2001). Strategic Management, Fifth Edition. Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin Company.

O’Keefe, Brian (2002, February 4). Finding the Bulls in Biotech. Fortune, 145(3), 135-140.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. (2001). Pharmaceutical Industry Primer—A Century of Progress.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. (2002). Pharmaceutical Industry Profile—New Medicines/New Hope.

Saftlas, Herman. (2001, December 27). Industry Surveys—Healthcare: Pharmaceuticals. Standard & Poor’s.

Wall Street Journal. (2002). It’s not Ted’s FDA. Retrieved February 8, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB10112248113614188000.djm,00.html

-----------------------
[pic]

|Table 3: Alliance Recognition |
|Award |Organization |
|Breakthrough Alliance Award of 2002 |Allicense 2002 Conference |
|Quality Award for Alliance Management |Association of Strategic Alliance |
| |Professionals |
|Top-ranked Strategic Alliance Partner |PricewaterhouseCoopers |
|Top Two Pharmaceutical Partners |Forbes Magazine |

[pic]

[pic]

Supplier’s Power

LOW

Potential Competitors
LOW to MODERATE

- Biotechnology -
Substitute Products
LOW
- Alternative Therapies

Buyers’ Power
HIGH
- Managed Care - Medicare

Existing Rivals
HIGH

- Generic Companies

Strategic Analysis prepared by
Rx Consulting

Kristine Beebe
Kiran Boyce
Sammi Ho
Judy Nga Vien
Hollis O’Brien

May 13, 2002