Set in 2009, the (A) case explores whether Amgen, a leading innovator of biotech-based drugs, should enter the emerging business of biosimilars (BS), which are essentially 'me-too' products. There appear to be sound reasons to explore this related diversification: innovation is getting harder, regulators are intent on encouraging BS, and Amgen needs renewed growth. But the possibility sparked a strong negative reaction within Amgen, not least because it contravened Amgen's mission. Internal debate was exacerbated by the presence of considerable uncertainty over the regulatory requirements for BS development and how difficult it would be to develop a BS. Some felt it played to Amgen's strengths, others felt that Amgen lacked critical capabilities. Many felt there was simply no need for any change in strategy at all. To navigate through this morass, Amgen needed clear strategic thinking. Amgen set out to see if an objective business case for entry could be built. This involved settling on a set of most likely assumptions, quantitatively estimating likely revenue and profitability, testing out sensitivity to assumptions using scenarios, and assessing the main risks of entry and of staying out. The analysis provided strong support for entry subject to the key assumptions. The (A) case also invites students to think through how CEO Kevin Sharer should handle a positive entry decision given the divided opinions across the senior management team.

The (B) case reveals that Sharer decided that Amgen should the emerging biosimilars business. However, he took the better part of a year to syndicate the decision across the senior team while in parallel investing in some time-critical process development. The (B) case then focuses on how the new business should be implemented, particularly in terms of integration versus separation of a new business unit, choice of unit leader, and whether Amgen should partner with a third party to gain access to skills or resources.

The search for new business ideas--and models--is hit-or-miss at most firms. Tackling the problem systematically, of course, will improve your odds of success. Traditional ways of framing this search examine competencies, customer needs, and shifts in the landscape. This article proposes adding a new IT-based framework. It involves asking, How can data and analytic tools be used to create new value? The authors have explored that question with many clients. In their work, they've seen IT create new value in five patterns: using data from sensors in objects to improve offerings (think smart energy meters); digitizing physical assets (such as health records); combining data within and across industries (to, say, coordinate supply chains); trading data (as mobile providers do with information on users' whereabouts); and codifying best-in-class capabilities (such as online expense management) as services. Drawing on examples from their own experience and their clients', the authors walk readers through each of the five patterns and how to apply them. They also provide advice and questions that will help executives get started on their own searches.