Technological Discontinuities and the Comparative Strategic Value of New Capabilites: Evidence from the Comparison of Small- and Large-Molecule Targeted Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery

Traditional creative destruction theories distinguish disruptions as competence-destroying or competence-enhancing to incumbents’ capabilities, with the former case resulting in incumbents’ loss of competitive advantage in in-house R&D performance (even if complementary assets aid in retaining final market share). In this paper, I propose that attention to the extent of competence destruction is necessary but not sufficient for analyses of competitive advantage in R&D through a technological discontinuity. A full analysis requires the comparison of the value added and ease of access (i.e., strategic value) of all capabilities, old and new. In other words, an analysis of competition during a transition requires assessment not only of how many of the old capabilities were lost but also what it takes to acquire the new ones. I find evidence for this proposition in qualitative and quantitative data from the transition of anti-cancer drug discovery from standard chemotherapy to targeted therapies. Among targeted therapies, I compare two variants, small- vs. large-molecule drugs, which though equally competence-destroying to chemotherapy-based drug discovery, differ in that large-molecule drugs require one more new capability: expertise in biopharmaceutical technology. By tracing the origin and evolution of biopharmaceutical technology, as well as its comparative value added, I can show a contrast in results: incumbents led in small-molecule targeted drug discovery; but they fell behind biopharmaceutical technology pioneers in large-molecule targeted drug discovery, where one of the new capabilities (i.e., expertise in biopharmaceutical technology) had higher value added and was more difficult to acquire than other new capabilities.