There’s no doubt about it, the market for pharmaceutical outsourcing is hot. But how does a company decide whether or not to outsource?
At its most basic level all outsourced manufacturing decisions should begin by analysing profitability measures (i.e. cost-benefit analyses). However, all too often companies are considering profitability measures alone without taking into account the potential of benefits gained through economies of scale.
Economies of scale refers to the scenario where companies experience decreasing average cost per unit as output increases – thus, it’s good to be big. Consider how Wal-Mart’s ability to offer products at lower prices than its competition can be generally attributed to large-scale quantity discounts received through purchasing negotiations; this is an example of economies of scale. Quantity discounts and purchasing negotiations, however, are not the only way to achieve it.
This article gives a brief overview of economies of scale and methods used to achieve such. As a starting point, consider three cases regarding average unit cost and how it relates to output:
Figure 1: An example of pure economies of scale [Ford]
Figure 2: An example of dis-economies of scale [Rolls Royce]
Figure 3: An example of economies of scale (real-world) [specialisation]
At its most basic level all outsourced manufacturing decisions should begin by analysing profitability measures
In Figure 1 the average unit cost is decreasing even as output increases: think about the average unit cost Ford faces when producing 10,000 F-150s vs 100,000 F-150s. Figure 2 presents the opposite case where the average unit cost is increasing as output increases. As an example, think about the average unit cost Rolls Royce faces when producing 10,000 Phantoms vs 100,000 Phantoms. Although the market demand increased equally in each scenario, Ford is likely to experience the benefits of economies of scale while Rolls Royce would suffer from dis-economies of scale. This is primarily due to the contrasting cost structures of each manufacturing facility.
To give a more real-world example, Figure 3 presents the case where the average unit cost is decreasing initially but at some point (q*) the economies of scale advantage is lost and dis-economies of scale begin to take effect.
The classic example to give here is Joe’s Doughnut Shop. Beginning with only one employee, hiring an additional employee can greatly increase the efficiency of the shop. This continues with the hiring of employees number 2, 3, 4 and so forth. However, after some point (q*) employees will suffer from a crowded workplace and will no longer be able to complete their jobs efficiently. Thus, companies currently experiencing the benefits of economies of scale are not guaranteed the same benefits under ever-increasing production requirements.
The focus of this article is not on maximising the benefits of economies of scale but simply attaining them in the first place.
Technological factors
One of the most common ways companies achieve economies of scale is through investments in specialised machinery and equipment. The above example of Ford experiencing economies of scale is assumed to be a result of highly efficient, highly specialised machinery. This type of machinery typically requires large initial fixed costs followed by low variable costs.
One of the most common ways companies achieve economies of scale is through investments in specialised machinery and equipment
However, due to this cost structure, Ford’s average cost per unit will decrease with every additional F-150 produced. Intuitively, think about whether it would be easier to spread the cost of an entire plant over 10,000 trucks or 100,000 trucks? But why wouldn’t Rolls Royce benefit in the same way?
The example of Rolls Royce experiencing dis-economies of scale is assumed to be a result of its focus on quality and craftsmanship rather than efficiency and price-point. This focus affords Rolls Royce the benefits of economies of scope but not economies of scale. While Ford may have an advantage in the ability to mass produce vehicles, Rolls Royce has an advantage in its ability to customise. Thus, if a customer wanted a personalised interior; Rolls Royce would be better prepared to accommodate such a request. This contrasting relationship between economies of scale and economies of scope can be thought of as the catalyst of the pharmaceutical outsourcing market.
Apart from quantity discounts and investments in specialised machinery, economies of scale can also be obtained through specialisation of the labour force. Henry Ford is considered a pioneer in this area for his implementation of the assembly line system in his factories. By having workers complete one specific task over and over, they became more efficient and subsequently more productive.
The increase in production and efficiency are the same benefits realised when investing in specialised machinery. However, whereas investments in specialised machinery and equipment come with high initial fixed costs followed by lower variable costs, investments in labour specialisation come with moderate fixed costs and moderate variable costs. While both may achieve economies of scale) it is important to note the differences in each approach in order to select the most applicable method.
Investments in specialised machinery typically take much longer to pay for than investing in specialised labour. So a company investigating a product that is forecast to have lower profit margins but stable long-term demand may be able to justify investments into specialised machinery when compared with a product with higher profit margins and more uncertain long term demand. This second product may be better suited to an investment in labour specialisation as the uncertainty in demand carries the potential for change in the near future; a situation that labour specialisation is more prepared to handle.
Labour specialisation is the driving force that allows many CMOs and CROs to offer services at lower costs than the pharmaceutical sponsor could achieve otherwise
Labour specialisation is the driving force that allows many CMOs and CROs to offer services at lower costs than the pharmaceutical sponsor could achieve otherwise. In addition to being more productive and efficient, firms utilising labour specialisation as a means to economies of scale are likely to benefit from increased product quality as well as an increase in innovation.
Consider the case of one worker performing 10 tasks versus 10 workers performing one task each. It should seem obvious that through specialisation workers would produce a higher quality product; however, these are the same forces that foster a higher level of innovation – an often overlooked facet of labour specialisation. The presence of this additional quality and innovation may be one of many forces contributing to the expansion of the pharma manufacturing and outsourcing boom in recent years.
Just as profitability measures should not be the sole criteria in determining outsourcing decisions, neither should the effects of economies of scale
Is it better to be large and efficient or small and versatile? This is the question everyone in the pharmaceutical manufacturing market ponders. There is no one right answer; rather each circumstance is dependent upon a unique set of factors. Of those factors, the potential benefits from economies of scale should be considered significant and investigated accordingly. Just as profitability measures should not be the sole criteria in determining outsourcing decisions, neither should the effects of economies of scale.
The aim of this article is not to give a hard set of rules, but rather to remind decision makers of the many ways in which project profitability can be assessed. Just as businesses not currently experiencing economies of scale can take strategic action to reverse course, so too a lack of strategic decision-making can reduce benefits from those currently operating within the economies of scale spectrum. For this reason, a thorough understanding of the concept is encouraged to ensure a comprehensive and robust decision-making process.
If you would like to learn more about market research, please email Nigel Walker, managing director, or Kate Hammeke, director of marketing intelligence, at Nice Insight.
