There has already been a huge debate on Singapore’s Biomedical Science Industry’s development with various well-known figures weighing in with their views. Of course there have been opposing views, which certainly make for a good debate. On one end, there is the view that all is well in this long term project. On the other end, there are calls for a strategy rethink as it is not specific and focused enough. At OTR, we are not trying to stir up more fire. Rather we would like to use our usual methods, such as application of various theories and concepts to offer you a substantiated take on the debate that has unfolded.

At the end of the month, Singapore will see one of its greatest contributor to the biomedical science sector move from A*STAR to SPRING Singapore.  In his farewell speech, Mr Philip Yeo recounted his work experience between 1986 and 2006.  It was truly impressive.

But critics of his work do exist.  In Feb 2007, Dr Lee Wei Ling, Head of National Neuroscience Institute, observed that A*STAR’s “scattered-shot” approach is spreading resources too thinly and suggested that it should move to a more focused strategy instead.

Dr Lee’s comment had sparked of much debate not only between Mr Yeo and Dr Lee, but also amongst many Singaporean.  Who is right?

The Biomedical Story – A Re-Look

In his speech, Mr Yeo has summarized the BMS (Biomedical Science) roadmap well in three lines:

• Development of BMS industrial capital over 5 to 10 years;
• Development of BMS human capital over 10 years;
• Development of BMS intellectual capital over 10 to 15 years.

The development of an industry from scratch is no easy feat.  Singapore at that time (year 2000) had neither proper biomedical infrastructure nor a good level of biomedical talent to lead the charge.  It was therefore necessary to build up these two “resources” before the research (and subsequently development) segment can be developed.

The roadmap therefore makes sense.  The development of an optimal BMS production industry will not only help boost the country’s GDP but also encourage the production of a biomedical labour pool since such highly specialized jobs are now available in the home country.

With a credible BMS industry and now a ready pool of biomedical science labour in place, it will make sense to invest in the development of human capital.  Once that is completed, the talents can than be deployed to research and develop new ideas thereby building the nation’s intellectual capital.

But the million dollar question is of course, which part of the BMS industry to develop and the answer seems to be “as many as possible to give everything and everyone a chance”.  But such a strategy is definitely not cheap and with limited resources the resource allocation will definitely be thin.

This was the basis of Dr Lee’s argument.  Since resources are thinly spread amongst the different segment of the industry, the probability of success in finding a breakthrough will become very small. Two World Bank economist have said that Singapore’s chance of success is 50-50. Dr Lee argues that A*STAR should instead “choose the few research areas that we (Singapore) think we may have a chance with. We cannot do everything. We have to be more focused…”

When Can We Succeed?

To answer his critics, Mr Yeo has iterated the progress of industry’s development:

“… (Singapore’s) BMS industrial output almost quadrupled from S$6 billion in 2000 to S$23 billion by end 2006. The BMS industry now accounts for over 5% of Singapore's GDP and 10,600 high value added jobs.

The biopharmaceuticals cluster has diversified from chemistry based bulk actives production to formulation, tabletting, pilot facilities, and process research and, most recently, to biologics and vaccines. The medical technology cluster now includes new high value products such as complex instrumentation systems, diagnostics, contact lenses, tissue heart valves and stents.

We now have over 25 companies with research centres in Singapore, including three corporate R&D laboratories run by Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. The growth rate of private-sector research spending has overtaken that of the public sector. Private research now accounts for close to 40% of total biomedical sciences R&D expenditure. Our long-term target for private BMS research is to exceed 60%.

By 2010, over 1,000 scholarships will have been awarded. Those scholars will be Singapore's future leaders in the public and private R&D domains, in our universities and also in our hospitals.”

(Philip Yeo’s farewell speech 14 Mar 07)

In other words, Mr Yeo and his team have achieved the first two objectives of their BMS initiative roadmap within five instead of ten years.  But can they achieve the third part of the road map within the next 5 years?

The answer really is anybody’s guess.  To many, success of any R&D is simple – achieve a medical breakthrough.  This success is really a mixture of capital, labour, land, and another ingredient – luck.  Though increasing resources available to researcher will increase the chances of success but it will not guarantee it even if we are focusing on areas that we think we will be successful in.  Furthermore, many bioscience breakthroughs take years of research and the breakthroughs may not even be the original intention of the research.  Viagra was one such example.  To demand success in a short span of five years may just be asking for too much.  Of course, even though chance plays a small and important part of the success, we still “have to get the most of what the country has put in”. 

Is Dr Lee Wrong Than?

Does our argument above imply that Dr Lee’s comments are wrong?  Should we not allocate more resources to conduct research on Hepatitis or head injuries?  Of course not.

Like any big corporation, business units are always trying to increase their resource allocation to enhance their chances of success.  Leaders of these business units are often aware of the demand for their services and the level of value-add they can achieve if more resources have been allocated to them.

The question is “how to secure such resources?”  The normal practice of course is to consolidate the statistics and present their case to the resource allocators – be it a central body or a market.  If the central allocators do not agree with the view, there will be others in the market.

From a Theoretical Viewpoint...

We talked about the Strategy-Operations axis in companies and we think it is fair to say that Strategists and Operators seldom see eye-to-eye. And the reason why they do not see eye-to-eye is because they are not talking at the right level. Strategists focus on broader goals while Operators like to nail down the specifics. In this case, both are not right or wrong, they are merely talking at two different levels.

In terms of objectivity, which is one of the key principles of Management Theory, we certainly cannot fault Mr Yeo in his achievement of the first two objectives. The third objective is something that needs to be achieved over time, maybe the next 5 years or even longer. And this timeframe is something that a Strategist should be working with, as compared to the Operator who works on a shorter timeframe of a year or two. Thus Operators are likely to demand results in a quicker timeframe while a Strategist has to hold his course for longer.

A Strategist who changes his course with the wind is in truth a lost strategist and runs the risk of being a fashion chaser rather than a professional corporate planner. Such strategists are often very clever in their use of data and statistics to substantiate their achievements. We knew a strategist who claimed his strategy succeeded when his company’s revenues increase significantly. On closer analysis, the company’s revenue increase had nothing to do with his strategy. Even when confronted with this clear analysis, he still reiterated the strength of his numbers. But that’s a deviation. Proper measurability and objectivity is needed to quantify the success of a strategy.

Operators tend to take a rather narrow and personal perspective on things. And rightly so. They are focused on their scope of work and how they can do it better or more efficiently. However efficiency is always about doing more with the same resources or doing even more with more resources. It is seldom about doing the same with less resources. In a way, it is like a General who views his own military might by the size of his army.

Operators often argue with Strategists on resource allocation because the Operator wants more resources for his or her own operations. This is a natural economic human instinct. Strategists will then have to work out some metrics to measure performance and then allocate resources according to these performance metrics. Overtime, a smart Operator who understands the performance metrics should be able to secure more resources from the Strategists unless of course the operation has other issues.

All for One (Country) ….

At the end of the day, the debate is really about heartlanders who are concern about the future of the nation, challenging each other to ensure the improvement of the nation’s competitive advantage.  As such, all parties should be considered noble and respectable.

But still it is important not to just whitewash this whole debate by saying that everybody is right and has his or her viewpoint. We think this is something that any idiot can say. It is more to understand and appreciate why each person has his or her viewpoints and how the person’s background and roles shape the viewpoint or perspective. Only then can we form intellectual views of any event. And only then can we say that we have not studied the various Management theories and concepts in vain.