The case series describes strategic transformation at Takeda, the largest Japanese pharmaceutical company, with a special focus on the R&D function. Since 2015, the 237-year-old industry doyen has narrowed its strategic focus from six to three therapeutic areas, reorganised its global R&D footprint around one Japanese and two US sites, and engaged in over 180 new partnerships across multiple modalities of drug discovery around the world. The pipeline of new drugs, a key gauge of future growth, has shifted from 7% partner-based pre-transformation to approximately 45% partner-based today, and an entrepreneurial, geocentric way of working has taken hold. At Takeda, a generation's worth of strategic transformation has been compressed into three years.From the outset of the transformation process, outgoing Chairman Yasu Hasegawa and incoming CEO Christophe Weber made it a point to sound out major shareholders and engage candidly with the union, working with different stakeholders to find novel organisational solutions. Once plans crystallised in 2016, Hasegawa and Weber moved to reconstitute the board of directors, changing its composition and renegotiating its modus operandi to further strategic dialogue. During the course of the same year, the executive team was recast around people - internal and external - who had the skills and the mindset to take the company forward on its new path. Early in 2017, executives finally initiated a review and adjustment of existing structures in R&D, particularly as they pertained to the burgeoning partnership portfolio. In other words, Takeda stands out not only as a rare example of a large company reinventing itself, but also as a case that illustrates the importance of proactively addressing the governance of transformation.

The case series describes strategic transformation at Takeda, the largest Japanese pharmaceutical company, with a special focus on the R&D function. Since 2015, the 237-year-old industry doyen has narrowed its strategic focus from six to three therapeutic areas, reorganised its global R&D footprint around one Japanese and two US sites, and engaged in over 180 new partnerships across multiple modalities of drug discovery around the world. The pipeline of new drugs, a key gauge of future growth, has shifted from 7% partner-based pre-transformation to approximately 45% partner-based today, and an entrepreneurial, geocentric way of working has taken hold. At Takeda, a generation's worth of strategic transformation has been compressed into three years.From the outset of the transformation process, outgoing Chairman Yasu Hasegawa and incoming CEO Christophe Weber made it a point to sound out major shareholders and engage candidly with the union, working with different stakeholders to find novel organisational solutions. Once plans crystallised in 2016, Hasegawa and Weber moved to reconstitute the board of directors, changing its composition and renegotiating its modus operandi to further strategic dialogue. During the course of the same year, the executive team was recast around people - internal and external - who had the skills and the mindset to take the company forward on its new path. Early in 2017, executives finally initiated a review and adjustment of existing structures in R&D, particularly as they pertained to the burgeoning partnership portfolio. In other words, Takeda stands out not only as a rare example of a large company reinventing itself, but also as a case that illustrates the importance of proactively addressing the governance of transformation.

Firms with ill-considered globalization strategies, say Alexander and Korine of London Business School, are poised to become targets for breakup or overhaul by activist shareowners. Yet many businesses (particularly in deregulated, service, and manufacturing industries) have made complacent assumptions about the need to go global and moved full steam ahead toward failure. If they had paused to answer three simple questions, they might well have avoided their missteps. Are there potential benefits for our company? Moves that make sense for some firms won't necessarily work for others. UK-based roof tile maker Redland learned that lesson when it tried leveraging its technical know-how beyond its home market - without realizing that building practices in certain countries provided very little demand for concrete roof tiles. The company was fully able to transfer the relevant technology, but there was no value in doing so in those markets. Do we have the necessary management skills? Even if potential benefits do exist for a company, it may not be in a position to realize them. Although industrial conglomerate BTR had developed a presence in many countries, each business unit was run more or less autonomously. As its customers globalized, they came to expect coordinated supply and support across borders. BTR was well positioned to deliver, but its ingrained culture blocked attempts at global integration. Will the costs outweigh the benefits? Global efforts can be rendered counterproductive through unanticipated collateral damage. TCL, a Chinese maker of electronics and home appliances, has expanded rapidly into the United States and Europe through a series of acquisitions and joint ventures. Along the way, the company's infrastructure has become unwieldy; the cost of managing it has outweighed the benefits of increased scale and resulted in large losses.