This 5 page paper responds to five questions related to this Harvard case study: technology policy formation at Monsanto, the expertise needed to become a world leader in biotechnology, the direction for the company in terms of biotechnology research, the organization of biotechnology research and Schneiderman's successor. Bibliography lists 1 source.
MONSANTO CASE STUDY , properly! 1. Technological
Policy Formulation Policy is formulated on need and vision. The company takes a long-term view for success, not short-term profit but long-term failure. It was CEO Hanleys belief that biotechnology
was the wave of the future. For example, when Jaworski requested funds to establish a cellular research lab, it was Jaworski who hired the scientists and set the agenda. When
Schneiderman and Jaworski established the molecular biology program, Jaworski once again was given full authority. Initially, their policy about getting technology was to get it anywhere they could. At
that time, that approach was valid. The company did not have the wherewithal to develop technology fast enough to gain a market presence in the field. For example, Schneiderman signed
a licensing agreement with Genentech for animal growth protein. It was a field in its very infancy and Monsanto was able to get a foot in the door. They
also looked to universities where cutting edge experiments are always taking place. They learned by a bad experience with Harvard that the agreement must be stated in very clear terms
because they basically lost the $50 million investment with Harvard. The agreement with Washington University was much clearer and must more beneficial for Monsanto as well as for the University.
2. What does being a World Force in Biotechnology Mean CEO Hanley believed the company would become a World Force by "creating outstanding applications of molecular biology to industrial
problems" (Barton and Pisano, 1993, p. 4). As Schneiderman said, if Monsanto was to be a world leader, they had to do great science and this would lead to insights