NORTH CAROLINA BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING ......2009/01/15 · 3 TRIANGLE REGION BIOPHARMA...

NORTH CAROLINA BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING LABOR MARKET ANALYSIS — Triangle Region

DukE ENERgy | NORTH CAROliNA BiOTECHNOlOgy CENTER | O’BRiEN/ATkiNS ASSOCiATES

PROgRESS ENERgy | WAkE COuNTy ECONOmiC DEvElOPmENT

ResearchTriangle

AlamanceAlexander

Alleghany

Anson

Ashe

Avery

Beaufort

Bertie

Bladen

Brunswick

Buncombe

Burke

Cabarrus

Caldwell

Camden

Carteret

Caswell

Catawba Chatham

Cherokee

Chowan

Clay

Cleveland

Columbus

Craven

Cumberland

Currituck

DareDavidson

Davie

Duplin

Durham Edgecombe

Forsyth Franklin

Gaston

Gates

Graham

Granville

Greene

Guilford

Halifax

Harnett

Haywood

Henderson

Hertford

Hoke

Hyde

Iredell

Jackson

Johnston

Jones

Lee

Lenoir

Lincoln

McDowell

Macon

MadisonMartin

Mecklenburg

Mitchell

MontgomeryMoore

Nash

NewHanover

Northampton

Onslow

Orange

Pamlico

Pasquotank

Pender

Perquimans

Person

Pitt

Polk

Randolph

Richmond

Robeson

Rockingham

Rowan

Rutherford

Sampson

Scotland

Stanly

StokesSurry

Swain

Transylvania

Tyrrell

Union

Vance

Wake

Warren

Washington

Watauga

Wayne

Wilkes

Wilson

Yadkin

Yancey

Research Triangle Laborshed

Twelve North Carolina counties:

Chatham Durham Franklin

granville Harnett Johnston

lee Nash Orange

Person vance Wake

Duke Energywww.duke-energy.com/ •economic-development/ [email protected]•

North Carolina Biotechnology Center

www.ncbiotech.or• [email protected]• g

O’Brien/Atkins Associates, PAwww.obrienatkins.co• [email protected]• m

Progress Energywww.progress-energy.com/economi• ck• [email protected]• [email protected]

Thank you to the sponsors of the Triangle Region Biopharma Manufacturing Labor Market Analysis:

Wake County Economic Development

www.raleigh-wake.or• [email protected]• g

www.duke-energy.com/economic-development/economic-development.asp



mailto:[email protected]

www.ncbiotech.org


www.obrienatkins.com


www.progress-energy.com/economic



www.raleigh-wake.org


Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Manufacturing/Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Quality Assurance/Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Process Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Plant Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 .1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 .2 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 .3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 .4 Defining the “Proxy” Project and Labor Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 .5 Defining the Geographic Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 .6 Gathering the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 .7 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. THE SUPPLY OF EXISTING BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING LABOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 .1 Biopharma Industry Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 .2 Biopharma Manufacturing Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 .3 Existing Biopharma Manufacturing Skill Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 .4 Manufacturing/Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 .5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 .6 Process Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 .7 Plant Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4. THE SUPPLY OF EMERGING BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING TALENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 .1 Emerging Biopharma Manufacturing Skill Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 .2 BioWork Enrollment and Course Completions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 .3 Biopharma Manufacturing Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 .4 Community College Enrollment and Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 .5 Undergraduate Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 .6 Graduate & PhD . Enrollment and Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5. CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2

T R I A N G L E R E G I O N B I O P H A R M A M A N U FAC T U R I N G L A B O R M A R K E T A N A LY S I S

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Co, (BLS & Co), a New Jersey-based site selection and economic development consultancy, was engaged by the North Carolina Biotechnology Cen-ter and its economic development partners in and around Raleigh-Durham (the “Triangle region”) to gauge the capability of the region’s labor force to sustain additional biomanufacturing plant investments. Upon completing this assignment it is our conclusion that the Triangle regional labor market is sufficiently large and adequately skilled to support several, additional, large biopharmaceutical manufacturing plants.

Our analysis adopts a site selector’s perspective and was designed around the types of information that clients typi-cally try to understand before making an important loca-tion decision. Our methodology borrows from site selection engagements and labor market assessments performed on behalf of corporate clients and refined over years of prac-tice. This approach included:

Creating a “proxy” project and associated labor require-1. ments. The basis for this analysis was a fully integrated, GMP compliant, biologics manufacturing plant produc-ing an existing, approved, cell-based drug. The plant will ramp-up staffing over a 2-year period. Our hiring standard is based on 15 potential applicants for each available position (15:1 hiring ratio).

Defining the geographic boundaries of the labor market 2. (the “laborshed”). This constituted a 12-county region in central North Carolina comprising an approximately 45-minute commuting distance around three geographi-cally diverse employment nodes in the Triangle.

Quantifying and assessing the availability of experi-3. enced manufacturing talent in the laborshed and new workforce entrants who will replenish this pool. To do so we identified the most relevant occupations in key functional areas of a biologics plant: 1] Manufactur-ing/Production; 2] Quality Assurance/Quality Control; 3] Process Development; and 4] Plant Operations and Support. We also attempted to align these functions with the various degree programs at North Carolina’s community colleges and universities. Data was gath-ered via interviews with human resources officials and managers at local biomanufacturing plants, instructors at community colleges and universities and economic developers. We also accessed federal and state occupa-tional and academic data bases, among other secondary information sources.

Inferring from these data the depth and breadth of 4. the regional labor market and its ability to sustain our project.

Our findings address each of the plant’s most important functions:

Manufacturing/ProductionWhen the job market was strong Triangle employers were typically able to fill 100 – 200 manufacturing positions per year without experiencing or creating undue competition for resources. The quality of these hires was uniformly characterized as high and few reported difficulties with voluntary turnover, which rarely exceeded 6%.

More than one-half of interviewed employers hired staff-ers with BioWork certificates. One employer believed that BioWork graduates receive a realistic job preview and were as well prepared for biopharma manufacturing jobs as those who had completed an Associates degree.

BLS & Co projects approximately 4,300 potential appli-cants for the 140 manufacturing/production positions requiring previous experience that are to be included in the proxy plant. As these jobs would be filled at the rate of 70 per year the potential labor supply would well exceed the target 15:1 hiring ratio in any given year.

In conjunction with the annual output from BioWork (295 students), the community colleges are expected to produce 481 prospective production employees annually to satisfy our project’s appetite for 30 inexperienced new hires per year.

Quality Assurance/Quality ControlEmployers report few issues attracting and retaining QA/QC personnel in the Triangle area. Turnover has gener-ally been low.

BLS & Co projects a potential applicant pool of almost 2,900 persons for the 45 experienced staffers to be hired into the QA/QC organization each year during the two-year ramp up period. This represents a significant annual surplus beyond normal hiring ratios. Several employers interviewed by BLS & Co noted that they are able to fill certain QA/QC positions with community college grads as an alternative to those possessing a 4-year degree. This presents significant advantages because employees with Associates degrees were seen as less susceptible to attri-tion and were generally paid a significant wage discount vs. college graduates.

The community colleges and universities are expected to produce about 1,600 prospective QA/QC employees to sat-isfy a need for just 5 inexperienced new hires per year.

3


Process DevelopmentTriangle employers cited few obstacles to hiring process engineers. BLS & Co projects a potential supply of approxi-mately 1,000 experienced process development employees within the Triangle laborshed. This surpasses the 210-per-son applicant pool that results from our desired 15:1 hiring ratio, based on 14 such experienced hires per year during the 2-year ramp-up period.

BLS & Co projects that North Carolina’s colleges and universities can supply an annual allotment of at least 281 graduates from the Triangle who’ve majored in Chemical Engineering or Industrial Engineering to satisfy the need for approximately six inexperienced process development staffers.

Plant OperationsInstrumentation and control technicians, process techni-cians and automation engineers are among the most dif-ficult positions to fill in the Triangle region, according to

employers interviewed by BLS & Co. Turnover also was an issue. Several employers reported recently losing skilled maintenance technicians to the utilities industry. A num-ber of companies achieved success recruiting instrument technicians and similar skills from the Navy.

BLS & Co projects a potential supply of approximately 500 experienced plant operations personnel within the Triangle laborshed. As our needs are 20 such employees per year we anticipate being able to meet our 15:1 hiring standard, however an employer cannot be complacent.

SummaryThe table below provides a synopsis of our project’s tal-ent requirements and prospective sources of qualified and inexperienced workers that have the potential to meet this demand.

Summary of all Sources of Labor: Triangle Region

Function Total HiresAnnual Hires

Target Yield @ 15:1 Ratio

Projected Annual Supply Source of Supply

Existing Biopharma Manufacturing Labor

Manufacturing/Production 140 70 1,050 4,297 Labor Force

QA/QC 90 45 675 2,898 Labor Force

Process Development 28 14 210 1,020 Labor Force

Plant Ops/Manufacturing Support 40 20 300 522 Labor Force

Emerging Biopharma Manufacturing Labor

Manufacturing/Production 60 30 — 481BioWork and Community Colleges

QA/QC 10 5 — 1,653Community Colleges & Universities

Process Development 12 6 — 281 Universities

Plant Ops/Manufacturing Support 0 0 — 190Community Colleges & Universities

4


2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 BackgroundThis report constitutes Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Company’s (BLS & Co’s) analysis of the market for biopharma manu-facturing labor in the Triangle Region; an assessment made from the perspective of a site selector. As practiced by a site selection firm, labor market analyses typically attempt to quantify the availability and quality of the workforce for an established skill set(s) and at a given price point, or wage. Clients use this information to choose between competing destinations for a new project (e.g., a new dis-tribution center or manufacturing plant), and/or to help them understand how large they might grow in an exist-ing market without jeopardizing their continued access to qualified labor at affordable wages.

This analysis was inspired by the desires of those at the North Carolina Biotechnology Center and its economic development partners in and around the Triangle to under-stand if the local biomanufacturing industry and North Carolina’s extensive post-secondary educational infra-structure have developed a sufficient number of experi-enced employees and prospective workforce entrants to attract additional biopharma manufacturing operations to the region. This report focuses mainly on the workforce metrics that a new employer would want to understand before making a location decision.

Why this concern about labor markets? In a 2001 survey by Site Selection Magazine 74% of corporate executives said finding available, skilled labor was their biggest challenge and that “labor, whether in a growing or declining economy, still plays a crucial role in corporate location decisions.”1 However, labor markets in many areas of the United States are at risk due to slowing growth and troubling skill shortages. According to recent studies by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation’s labor force is pro-jected to grow by only 1% per year, compared with 2.6% during the periods of peak growth in the 1970’s. Over the longer term the Bureau envisions that growth of the nation’s labor force will come to a standstill. Such trends signal that employers will have to learn to do more with less. However, a 2006 survey by the Conference Board and the Soci-ety for Human Resources Management warned that the workforce is wanting: fully 70% of recent US high school gradu-ates had substandard skills and college

graduates were thought to be just adequately prepared to enter the modern workforce.2

It is clear that employers cannot, and do not, take the availability of a skilled workforce for granted when mak-ing a location decision. It should be equally apparent that any area or region that can boast of an abundance of experienced and skilled workers and the infrastructure to grow and resupply this valuable resource will have an advantage in the global competition to attract good jobs and investment.

2.2 OrganizationThis report is organized around the labor requirements of a 400-employee biopharma manufacturing plant, as described in more detail below. For each key function in such a plant (e.g., manufacturing, quality control), we have attempted to quantify the available pool of experi-enced, skilled workers and the “pipeline” of new talent being produced annually by North Carolina’s community colleges and universities.

2.3 MethodologyOur approach to this engagement included the following key activities:

Creating a “proxy” project and labor requirements•

Defining the spatial dimensions of the labor market •(the “laborshed”)

Assessing the availability of experienced biomanufac-•turing labor and new workforce entrants

Reporting findings and making conclusions as to the •ability of a new biomanufacturer to compete for its fair share of labor; e.g., to achieve a sustainable labor pool

Create Proxy Project

Define Labor

Market Geography

Gather Data

Assess Availability

Report Findings

5


2.4 Defining the “Proxy” Project and Labor RequirementsThis engagement is somewhat unique from labor market analyses that BLS & Co undertakes on behalf of its corporate clients. Without a predefined project requirement including numbers and types of positions, skills, attributes, etc., there can be no context for an assessment of the Triangle region. The solution was to create our own “proxy” project, a real-istically-drawn fictional entity that will enable us to perform a market-based assessment of the region.

Our fictional project was designed with the active input of a panel of industry, economic development and academic experts assembled for this study by the North Carolina Bio-technology Center. A fully-integrated plant (fermentation thru fill/finish) was deemed well-suited to our purposes. Project employment was pegged at the high end of the spec-trum, reflecting the prospect demographic that has been encountered most frequently by local economic developers. The distribution of the workforce is typical of the life sci-ence manufacturing operations known to our panelists (and later verified by BLS & Co during field interviews with local employers). This profile is summarized below:

Following are brief position descriptions for key functions within our project:3

Manufacturing/Production: • Combines technical knowl-edge with procedural accuracy in diverse areas from cell development (for biomanufacturing) to steriliza-tion and chemical mixing (for traditional drug mak-ing); also focuses on product finishing and packaging tasks. Representative positions include:

Process Technician: • High School Diploma and rel-evant experience/training

Formulation/Fill Technician: • High School Diploma and relevant experience/training

Packaging Technician: • High School Diploma and relevant experience/training

QA/QC:• Plays a central role by ensuring products and production processes meet stringent federal manufac-turing standards. Representative positions include:

Quality Control/Assurance Technician: • 2-year Asso-ciates degree

Quality Control Associate: • B.S. degree

Process Development: • On hand R&D staff to make improvements and modifications to existing produc-tion processes and identify possibilities for extending production technologies and applications.

Process Development Associate: • 2-year Associates degree & experience

Process Development Scientist: • MS & experience or PhD.

Plant Operations: • Maintenance workers to ensure the smooth and continuous functioning of highly complex machinery.

Maintenance Technician: • High School Diploma and trade certification

Instrumentation Technician: • 2-year Associates degree

Based on our conversations with area employers and BLS & Co’s previous project experiences, compensation and benefits at our proxy plant have been pegged at the market median (50th percentile) in the Triangle. We also assume a 15:1 hiring ratio, meaning that employers will make one hire for every 15 applicants, this too is based on project experience and our local interviews. Finally, our manufacturing clients have always voiced a preference for a non-union labor environment whenever attainable. As North Carolina’s workforce has among the lowest rates of unionization in the country (2.0% of the private-sector workforce vs. 7.5% nationally), this is not expected to present any serious hiring challenges.

2.5 Defining the Geographic ScopeIt is important at the beginning of this analysis that we determine the boundaries of the targeted geography to be investigated. How are we to physically define the Triangle labor market? Our answer is based in part on the needs

Type of Facility

• Fully integrated biologics plant

• Manufactures approved, cell-based drug

• Approximately 400 at full buildout

• 2-year ramp-up

• 50% Manufacturing/ Production

• 25% QA/AC• 10% Process Development• 10% Plant Operations• 5% Other [management,

etc.]

Employment

Workforce

6


of this study and on the limitations of the data that are available for this type of analysis.4

For the purposes of this study we defined the Raleigh-Dur-ham biomanufacturing laborshed as that area comprising a 45-minute driving distance from three geographically-diverse employment nodes in the Triangle:

Clayton• Sanford•

Treyburn (Durham)•

It has been our experience that a 45-minute ride by auto-mobile is often the maximum distance that a nonexempt (hourly) worker will travel for a desirable job paying the median wage in an area. This general radius was confirmed via our interviews with local employers.

We had planned to define the outermost boundaries of this laborshed by aggregating the three commute zones, thereby creating a customized polygon within which we would then collect and analyze various labor data. However, in doing so we ran into data scope and coverage issues – particularly the lack of good occupational data at the highly specific 6-digit SOC code level needed to define the types of jobs that would exist inside this biomanufacturing facility. The

solution was to base our analysis on aggregated county-level data for the area that most nearly approximates the laborshed defined by our custom polygon.

The result is a 12-county area comprising the counties of:

Chatham• Durham•

Franklin• Granville•

Hartnett• Johnston (also included •in the Eastern NC labor-shed)

Lee• Nash (also included in the •Eastern NC laborshed)

Orange• Person•

Vance• Wake•

Both Johnston and Nash counties are close enough to the biopharma employment centers in Rocky Mount (Hospira) and Wilson (Merck, Sandoz, Purdue and soon Becton Dickinson) also to be considered as part of the Eastern North Carolina laborshed, which was studied separately. Though it fell within our polygon, we elected not to include Wilson County in the Triangle laborshed to maintain the

Projected Laborshed:

7


distinctiveness of the Eastern North Carolina laborshed. The map below shows this laborshed (lightly shaded) and our customized polygon as an overlay:

2.6 Gathering the DataFor this analysis our data gathering included:

Primary research, including field interviews with employ-•ers, recruiters, academics and economic development officials in the Triangle; and

Secondary research, including data describing occupations •and academic curricula characteristic of the biopharma manufacturing sector in the regional laborshed. Much of the labor market data needed for this assignment are available from the major federal data sources (e.g., the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics) as well as the North Carolina Department of Labor, the Uni-versity of North Carolina system, the North Carolina Community College System and others.

Using these resources BLS & Co began assessing the Tri-angle area labor market.

2.7 ChallengesThe data sources created a number of challenges for our analysts:

We conducted interviews with seven major biopharma •employers in the Triangle and also with area educa-tors, recruiters and economic development officials. A staple of labor market analyses as practiced by BLS & Co, these conversations were very fruitful and yielded good information regarding current employment, hir-ing experiences, turnover, job training, etc. However these discussions cannot substitute for scientifically-controlled “surveys” as the sample size is too small and not every respondent was prepared, or willing to answer all of our questions.

We encountered issues with scope and coverage, as •noted in our laborshed discussion above. For example, to quantify the specific occupations involved in biomanu-facturing we resorted to 6-digit SOC codes (explained in more detail in section 2.3). Doing so required that we collect data from the North Carolina Department of Labor for each county in the Triangle region because our customary data supplier was unable to provide the needed detail.

We faced challenges gathering university enrollment •and graduation data. The data bases of the University of North Carolina system are very comprehensive but do not report the county of residence of graduating stu-dents at the curriculum level. To approximate these data

BLS & Co used the distribution of student residences reported at the individual university level.

Government privacy laws dictate that labor agencies not •publish detailed local data if doing so would disclose information pertaining to only one or two companies. In such situations agencies are required to suppress the data which can frustrate labor market research. For our study these disclosure thresholds were not met for sev-eral occupational titles and consequently no data were reported. In such instances, BLS & Co and its consult-ing partner, WDG Consulting, derived the estimated employment and wage by trending known reported variables from prior years.

8


3. THE SUPPLY OF EXISTING BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING LABOR

3.1 Biopharma Industry ProfileRaleigh-Durham’s status as a leading center of biopharma intellectual and manufacturing activity is unquestioned. According to “Signs of Life” a highly regarded report on the growth of biotechnology centers in the US published by the Brookings Institution in 2001, the Triangle is one of only nine regions of the United States that have earned the distinction of being a leading biotechnology center due primarily to above-average levels of biotechnology research activity and biotechnology commercialization5. More recently, Raleigh-Cary was ranked 10th overall in the Milken Institute’s “Best Performing Cities Index.” The criteria included growth in jobs, wages and GDP in addition to specialization in high technology employment. The Milken report characterized the Raleigh area as “the poster child for the recovery in technology and science-based firms.” 6

The Triangle’s resurgence has been led by major manufac-turing announcements including Merck’s decision in June

2008 to invest an additional $300 million and to add 150 new jobs to its relatively new Durham operations. Merck had announced previously that it would add a sterile pro-cessing facility, test labs and packaging lines to its Dur-ham vaccine plant. Around the same time BD Biosciences announced that it would increase employment by 180 posi-tions at the TriPath Imaging operations in Durham that it had recently acquired. In what was perhaps the region’s biggest manufacturing “win” Novartis is also building a new influenza vaccine plant in Holly Springs in Wake County, creating almost $300 million of new investment and generating 350 to 400 new jobs by 2012.

The area also has experienced some setbacks. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has been shedding jobs as it struggles with competition from generics and setbacks developing new blockbuster drugs. The Triangle has not been immune from these trends; since 2007 GlaxoS-mithKline has cut hundreds of jobs at its Zebulon plant and RTP research center and in November 2008 Wyeth announced a 10% reduction at its Sanford vaccine plant. Others, such as contract manufacturer Diosynth, have instituted hiring freezes.

The North Carolina Biotechnology Center surveyed bio-pharmaceutical companies as part of its 2003 and 2007 “Windows on the Workplace” training needs assessments. Its most recent effort found that biopharma manufacturing

Table 1: Employment from “Windows on the Workplace,” 2007: Triangle Region

2002 2007% Change ‘02 – ‘07

Projected 2010

% Change ‘07 – ‘10

Biomanufacturing Total

Statewide 4,415 5,933 34 .4% 6,442 8 .58%

Triangle Region 4,114 5,621 36 .6% 6,212 10 .51%

Traditional Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

Statewide 8,808 9,424 7 .0% — —

Triangle Region 4,403 5,338 21 .2%

Pharma Manufacturing Service Provider

Statewide 2,374 2,286 -3 .7% — —

Triangle Region 490 258 -47 .3%

Total Statewide 15,597 17,643 13 .1% — —

Total Triangle Region 9,007 11,217 24 .5% — —

Source: North Carolina Biotechnology Center, 2008

9


and related employment in the Triangle increased almost twice as fast as the statewide average between 2002 and 2007 (24.5% vs 13.1%).

3.2 Biopharma Manufacturing OccupationsA key objective of this study is to quantify the supply of existing, experienced biopharma manufacturing talent in the Raleigh-Durham area. BLS & Co’s chosen methodol-ogy is based on occupational data rather than industry or sectoral data. The sector approach would have required using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, the standard system of classifying indus-try adopted by the federal government. The limitations of NAICS codes are two-fold: 1] the System does not recog-nize “Biotechnology” or “Biomanufacturing” as industrial sectors; and 2] the System does not discriminate between scientific, manufacturing, administrative jobs, etc.

To address these omissions we resorted to The US Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system, and SOC codes for occupational employ-ment and wage data. The SOC system is the occupational

classification system used by all federal statistical agencies. It consists of 801 detailed civilian occupations organized into 22 major groups. Excluded are military occupations, which are not covered in the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey. Because the SOC system does not distinguish bio-manufacturing jobs from other technical and scientific occupations we turned to the work performed in 2006 by the San Diego Workforce Partnership, and in particular, its “crosswalk” between SOC codes and another, well-regarded occupational classification system developed by the Radford Biotechnology Survey. In cooperation with North Carolina Biotechnology Center staff this crosswalk allowed us to narrow our focus considerably by eliminat-ing occupations that had little or no relevancy to biop-harma manufacturing and by enabling us to “drill down” to very specific 6-digit occupational codes for those jobs that were deemed appropriate to our proxy project. This approach has resulted in the identification of the follow-ing SOC codes and occupations as those most frequently found in a biopharma manufacturing plant. Please notice that the functions have been aligned with those used to characterize the distribution of the workforce in our proxy project in Section 2.4:

Biopharma Manufacturing Occupations

FunctionSOC Code SOC Description

Manufacturing/Production 19-4021 Biological Technicians

19-4031 Chemical Technicians

51-1011 Supervisor/Managers of Production/Operating Workers

51-4011 Computer Controlled Machine Tool Operators

51-8031 Waste Treatment Plant/System Operators

51-8091 Chemical Plant/System Operators

51-9011 Chemical Equipment Operators/Tenders

51-9012 Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, etc . Machine Operators

51-9111 Packaging and Filling Machine Operators/Tenders

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13-1041 Compliance Officers, Except Agriculture/Construction

17-2199 Engineers, All Other

19-1021 Biochemists and Biophysicists

19-1022 Microbiologists

19-1029 Biological Scientists, All Others

19-1099 Life Scientist, All Others

19-2031 Chemists

19-4099 Life, Physical, Social Science Technicians, All Others

29-2012 Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians

10


3.3 Existing Biopharma Manufacturing Skill BaseThe BLS & Co approach yields approximately 30,300 persons in 2008 in the Triangle region employed in occu-pations that are relevant and transferable to a biopharma manufacturing plant (see Table 2). To this group we also might add a certain percentage of those who are presently unemployed in the metropolitan area. We cannot know the precise number of unemployed presently possessing the skills to work in a biopharmaceutical manufacturing plant, but it is reasonable to expect that the proportion could be similar to the unemployment rate of the workforce as a whole: 5.1% or another 1,500+ potential employees.

The data indicate an overall increase of 18% in this bio-manufacturing labor pool in the Triangle region between 2000 and 2008, with the greatest increase among manu-facturing and production occupations (41%). Hiring expe-riences at employers interviewed by BLS & Co appear to verify this general increase in biopharma manufacturing labor availability. Many report that they have been able to recruit a highly qualified and dedicated workforce and most experienced only modest levels of voluntary turnover (2% to 7%). When the job market was stronger some of these same companies did trade employees but the com-petition never reached mercenary levels. However, several human resources executives expressed concern that hiring at Novartis’ new Holly Springs plant could ignite a new round of job-hopping.

FunctionSOC Code SOC Description

Process Development 11-3051 Industrial Production Managers

17-2031 Biomedical Engineers

17-2041 Chemical Engineers

17-2112 Industrial Engineers

17-2131 Materials Engineers

Plant Ops/Manufacturing Support 17-3023 Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technicians

17-3026 Industrial Engineering Technicians

51-4012 Numerical Tool and Process Control Programmers

Table 2: Employment by Biomanufacturing Occupation, 2000 – 2008: Triangle Region

Year 2000 Year 2008 Change 2000 – 2008

SOC DescriptionTriangle Region

State of NC U.S.

Triangle Region

State of NC U.S.

Triangle Region

State of NC U.S.

Manufacturing/Production 10,570 65,550 1,664,580 14,920 64,670 1,562,360 41 .2% -1 .3% -6 .1%

QA/QC 9,370 22,460 739,120 10,060 20,860 761,160 7 .4% -7 .1% 3 .0%

Process Development 3,230 14,590 439,740 3,540 13,650 423,170 9 .6% -6 .4% -3 .8%

Plant Ops/Manufacturing Support 2,520 10,380 332,250 1,810 5,900 254,670 -28 .2% -43 .2% -23 .3%

Total 25,690 112,980 3,175,690 30,330 105,080 3,001,360 18.1% -7.0% -5.5%

Source: North Carolina Department of Labor – Occupational Employment Statistics (OES), and Equal Opportunity Employment Commis-sion (EEO) 2000 Data .

* Derived using multiple data sources – Claritas, EEO and OES .

11


In the following section we will address how much of this labor force is available for each functional area of our proxy plant. With the assistance of our consulting partner, Wadley Donovan Gutshaw Consulting, we’ve derived the following methodology to yield a market-driven estimate of the availability of biomanufacturing worksite skills in Triangle Region:

These sequential adjustments are based on what we learned about the region’s labor market dynamics during our inter-views with area employers:

As a starting point we 1. assume that our proxy manufacturer will provide compensation at the median of the market in the Triangle. This was the position of most plant human resources officials and general managers with whom we spoke. Doing so effectively prices 50% of the market out of our reach – if wages were the sole decision-making criterion during a prospective employee’s job search.

Employers cited some concerns regarding Trian-2. gle area congestion that could limit a prospective employee’s willingness to commute. We conserva-tively estimated that 20% of potential applicants would be disinclined to accept a particular job due to the adverse impact on their commute.

We eliminated another 10% based on the likelihood that 3. they would pass-up a job at our proxy plant for another, equally attractive opportunity closer to home.

We made our final adjustment (20%) based on the per-4. ceived attractiveness of a job in the biopharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Employers cited the challenges of working in a GMP environment as one of the most significant disincentives to employment at their plant.

This methodology results in an accessible pool of approxi-mately 8,700 experienced and skilled biomanufacturing employees. The results for each function in our proxy plant follow.

3.4 Manufacturing/ProductionDuring their last round of hiring it was not difficult for manufacturers in the Triangle region to fill 100 – 200 manufacturing positions annually. As a rule 60% to 85% of these positions were taken by an employee with previ-ous biopharma manufacturing experience or experience in GMP-like industries such as cosmetics and food processing. The quality of these new employees was uniformly high – several employers reported filling production jobs with

persons having degrees from 4-year institutions such as North Carolina State Univer-

sity who were attracted to the predictable and consistent nature

of the jobs. No one reported diffi-culties with voluntary turnover.

More than one-half of interviewed employers hired staffers with BioWork

certificates; at two companies the preferred BioWork program was geared towards solid

dose manufacturing (offered at Wilson Com-munity College). Persons interviewed by BLS

& Co were uniformly impressed by the quality and work ethic of those that had completed the

BioWork program. One employer believed that BioWork graduates receive a more realistic job pre-

view and were thus better prepared for biopharma manufacturing jobs than were those who had completed

an Associates degree.

We were unable to verify median wages paid by local employers due to incomplete information. Where employ-ers were able to provide average entry-level wage infor-mation it generally matched the published averages, and revealed that labor costs in the Raleigh-Durham area were approximately 7% – 9% higher than the rest of the state, but around 4% below US averages.

BLS & Co projects approximately 4,300 potential appli-cants for the 140 manufacturing/production positions requiring previous experience. As these jobs would be filled at the rate of 70 per year, the potential labor supply would well exceed the target 15:1 hiring ratio. The table below summarizes the requirement and the derivation of labor supply:

Start with unadjusted pool of skilled and experienced employees in relevant occupations.

Reduce by 50% to account for the buying power of an assumed median wage position

Reduce by 15% for potential restrictions on mobility within the

laborshed (e.g., traffic)

5% discount due to intercept potential

Eliminate final 20% for GMP

challenges

12


Manufacturing/Production Labor Supply Derivation

Number Required: 100 per year

Number with Experience:

70 per year (70%)

Number without Experience

30 per year

Median Wage and Differentials:

Triangle $38,932

vs . State: 104 .8%

vs . US: 96 .3%

Total Experienced Pool:

14,920

Wage Adjustment: - 7,460

Commute Adjustment:

- 1,492

Intercept Adjustment - 597

Attractiveness Adjustment:

- 1,074

Final Yield: 4,297 prospective experienced applicants

Target Yield at 15:1 hiring ratio

1,050 per year

3.5 Quality Assurance/Quality ControlEmployers report few issues attracting and retaining QA/QC personnel in the Triangle area. Those who are hir-ing are not doing so in great numbers (perhaps 10 per year at most). Many of these positions are filled in-house. External hires generally come from industry or contrac-tors. Analysts and some Techs will have a 4-year degree, usually in Chemistry or Biology, other Techs will have earned Associates degrees (however one employer noted that the Raleigh-Durham area was so “saturated” with university graduates that she doesn’t need to tap the com-munity college system for good applicants). Turnover has generally been low.

BLS & Co projects a potential applicant pool of almost 2,900 persons for the 45 experienced staffers to be hired into the QA/QC organization during the two year ramp up period. This represents a significant annual surplus beyond our desired hiring ratios.

QA/QC Labor Supply Derivation


Number with Experience

45 per year (90%)


5 per year


Triangle $58,207

vs . State: 105 .4%

vs . US: 95 .2%


10,060


Commute Adjustment:

- 1,006



- 724



675 per year

3.6 Process DevelopmentTriangle employers cited few obstacles to hiring process engineers, though one plant manager complained that he had been losing Chemical Engineers to the oil and gas industry due to significantly higher pay.

BLS & Co projects a potential supply of approximately 1,000 experienced process development employees within the Triangle laborshed. This far exceeds the 210-person applicant pool that results from our desired 15:1 hiring ratio, based on 14 such experienced hires per year during the 2-year ramp-up period.

13


Process Development Labor Supply Derivation


Number with Experience

14 per year (70%)


6 per year


Triangle $78,185

vs . State: 107 .9%

vs . US: 97 .8%


3,540


Commute Adjustment:

- 354



- 255



210 per year

3.7 Plant OperationsInstrumentation and control technicians, process techni-cians and automation engineers are among the most dif-ficult positions to fill in the Triangle region, according to employers interviewed by BLS & Co. These employers reported somewhat less difficulty attracting more tradi-tional utilities engineers (HVAC, water, etc.) but still found experience levels wanting. While employers preferred to hire those with pharma industry experience, Monsanto, Siemens and ABB are also considered a good source of experienced talent.

Turnover was an issue. Several employers reported recently losing skilled maintenance technicians to the utilities indus-try (Progress Energy was said to be building a new facility in Eastern North Carolina).

A number of employers reported success recruiting instru-ment technicians and similar skills from the Navy. A recruiter with whom we spoke said the most complicated industrial processes in the armed services (and particularly the Navy) are similar to those in a GMP environment. These techs typically have a great deal of experience and are willing to relocate to North Carolina for a good job (many will come from Virginia, Florida or the West Coast – the military provides free relocation from their last duty station). Confirming what we have learned via interviews in other parts of North Carolina, several Triangle area biomanufacturers assert that the high schools need to do a better job encouraging students to pursue careers in the “industrial arts.”

BLS & Co projects a potential supply of more than 500 experienced process development employees within the Triangle laborshed. As our needs are 20 such employees per year we anticipate being able to meet our 15:1 hiring standard. However an employer cannot be complacent.

Plant Operations Labor Supply Derivation


Number with Experience:

20 per year (100%)


0


Triangle $49,443

vs . State: 107 .9%

vs . US: 100 .8%


1,810

Wage Adjustment: -905

Commute Adjustment:

- 181



- 130

Final Yield: 522 prospective experienced applicants


300 per year

14


4. THE SUPPLY OF EMERGING BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING TALENT

4.1 Emerging Biopharma Manufacturing Skill BaseThe emerging skill base is represented by enrollees and recent graduates from the community colleges and uni-versity systems (both public and private). Each county in the Triangle region has, or shares, a community college. The Triangle’s major universities include Duke University, North Carolina Central University, North Carolina State University, and The University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill. Other notable colleges in the area include Campbell University, Peace College and Shaw University.

4.2 BioWork Enrollment and Course CompletionsSix community colleges in the region (Central Carolina, Durham Tech, Johnston CC, Piedmont CC, Vance-Gran-ville CC and Wake Tech), offer BioWork, a 128-hour course providing entry-level training for the life sciences manufacturing industry designed by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center. Because BioWork has only limited barriers to entry it is available to job seekers with lower levels of education. The majority of BioWorks students come from low-paying industries such as retail sales, food service and healthcare support. Many also have been dis-placed from traditional manufacturing sectors.7

Graduates of the BioWork program will not be the sole source of inexperienced manufacturing/production work-ers available to biopharma manufacturing employers in the Triangle, but the program can be a valuable contributor. A number of Triangle employers give the equivalent of one year’s work experience for any job applicant completing the BioWork program. Several area employers involved in solid dose pharmaceutical manufacturing seek BioWorks grads from Wilson Community College (not included here in the Triangle area) because of that program’s emphasis on solid dose manufacturing processes.

Earlier we projected that our plant would need to hire 70 experienced manufacturing/production employers each year for two years. The 30 or so less experienced employ-ees could be satisfied by the approximately 650 BioWork course completers produced annually in the Triangle region as detailed by Table 3, below.

Table 3: BioWork Enrollees and Graduates, 2004-2008: Triangle Region

Community College

2004-2008 Average Enrollment

2004-2008 Average Annual Completions*

Central Carolina CC 94 88

Durham Tech CC 90 85

Johnston CC 327 307

Piedmont CC 19 18

Vance Granville CC 72 68

Wake Tech CC 95 89

Total 697 655

Source: North Carolina Community College System Data Ware-house

However, our interviews with several BioWork observers revealed that on average only 40% to 50% of course com-pleters take jobs within the biopharmaceutical industry. Thus, we discounted the estimated annual supply of Bio-Work completers in the Triangle region to 295 per year. Despite this, the number of BioWork graduates in the area will greatly exceed the anticipated demand generated by our project. Also, employers in the region are not limited to just these six colleges, thus the potential BioWork pool, which averages approximately 840 enrollees per year sys-tem-wide, can be considerably larger.

4.3 Biopharma Manufacturing CurriculaNeither is the emerging labor pool limited to BioWork graduates. To quantify the potential supply of Associates degree candidates and new undergraduate, graduate and doctoral degree holders BLS & Co and the staff of the Biotechnology Center identified the academic curricula most relevant to biopharma manufacturing.

We used the US Department of Education’s Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) coding system, the Radford Biotechnology Study and the work performed by the San Diego Workforce Partnership to develop our inventory of educational programs. This list includes only those codes for which North Carolina’s community colleges and uni-versities reported enrollment between 2005 and 2008:

15


Biopharma Curricula

Function CIP Code CIP Description

Manufacturing/Production A21080 Industrial Pharmaceutical Technology (AS)

A50440 Bioprocess Manufacturing Technology (AS)

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

A20100 Biotechnology (AS)

A20140 Environmental Science Technology (AS)

A20180 Industrial Laboratory Technology (AS)

260101 Biology/Biological Sciences

260202 Biochemistry

260204 Molecular Biology

260502 Microbiology

261102 Biostatistics

261201 Biotechnology

400501 Chemistry

Process Development 140701 Chemical Engineering

143501 Industrial Engineering

Plant Ops & Manufacturing Support

A40240 Industrial Engineering Technology (AS)

A50240 Industrial Maintenance Technology (AS)

D50170 Facility Maintenance Worker (AS)

150612 Industrial Technology/Technician

150613 Manufacturing Technology/Technician

150699 Industrial Production Technologies/Technician

4.4 Community College Enrollment and DegreesBioNetwork is a statewide initiative of the North Caro-lina Community College System that provides specialized training and equipment to develop the state’s workforce for the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. One employer with whom we met characterized the North Carolina Community College System as one of the best in the country and several noted that they are now able to fill certain production and QA/QC positions with commu-nity college grads as an alternative to those possessing a 4-year degree. This presents significant advantages because employees with Associates degrees were seen as less sus-ceptible to attrition and were generally paid a significant wage discount vs. college graduates. Another employer interviewed by BLS & Co noted that they are upgrading several production positions and will soon require an AS in Bioprocessing rather than a high school education.

Employers posed one challenge for the area’s community colleges: do more to address industry’s needs for instrumen-tation and control technicians. It was noted that four col-leges in the System recently dropped their AS in Industrial Maintenance Technology due to lack of student interest.

The community colleges serving the 12-county Triangle region enroll an average of 458 students per year in biop-harma manufacturing disciplines, and graduate an aver-age of 102 per year in all functional areas except Process Development. A significant number of these enrollees will not complete

their degrees in a timely manner, if at all. Among this group are those who will leave college for a new job and fail to complete their degree requirements. Others work full-time while in school and thus may take many years to achieve their degrees. Employers interviewed by BLS & Co report relatively high levels of satisfaction with these non-degree “dropouts,” thus the number of students poten-

16


tially available to industry should not be limited to those who have completed their degree requirements. Below we have chosen to reflect Associates degree enrollees in the pool that can satisfy our project’s allowance of inexperi-enced labor.

Based on these data BLS & Co estimates the community colleges will be able to produce the following annual sup-ply of inexperienced new hires:

Table 4: Selected Associates Degrees: Students from Triangle Region

2000-2008

Function CIP Code 2000-2008 CurriculumAverage Fall Enrollment

Average Annual Degrees

Manufacturing/Production A21080 Industrial Pharmaceutical Tech 92 32

A50440 Bioprocess Manufacturing Tech 94 29

Subtotal 186 61

QA/QC A20100 Biotechnology 49 0

A20140 Environmental Sci & Tech 24 0

A20160 Industrial Laboratory Tech 34 0

Subtotal 107 0

Plant Ops & Mfg Support A40240 Industrial Engineering Tech 16 1

A50240 Industrial Maintenance Tech 120 40

D50170 Facility Maintenance Worker 29 0

Subtotal 165 41

Total 458 102

Source: North Carolina Community College System, BioNetwork

481 prospective production employees (when BioWork •completers are included) to satisfy our project’s appetite for 30 inexperienced new hires per year

107 prospective QA/QC employees to meet a need for •just 5 inexperienced new hires per year; and

165 prospective plant operations personnel, all of whom •will require additional experience to be considered qualified for positions.

17


4.5 Undergraduate DegreesAlthough some employers fill manufacturing jobs with candidates possessing 4-year degrees this is not the norm. Generally, the undergraduates receiving biopharmaceuti-cal-related degrees find themselves in process development and quality control positions, depending on the types and amount of industry experience they also have been able to attain. For these jobs the annual output of North Caro-lina’s public and private universities is more than ample to fill our project’s requirements.

As employment outcome data were hard to come by BLS & Co defined the potential labor pool as those graduating students whose permanent address is in the Triangle region, as well as those graduating from colleges in the Triangle but actually residing elsewhere in the state or beyond. Based on these parameters, Table 5 below indicates that the sixteen schools of the University of North Carolina system plus the region’s six private schools (e.g., Camp-bell University, Duke University, Meredith College, etc.) produce approximately 1,800 biomanufacturing-related graduates per year for Triangle employers.

Based on conversations with the chairs of several university departments BLS & Co assumes that 75% of these gradu-ates (approximately 1,400) will enter the labor force, the remainder will continue their education or pursue other activities.

Triangle employers tap most area schools and also Barton College and East Carolina University to fill their talent needs. NC State was cited for the quality of its engineer-ing grads and for the hands-on training offered by the new BTEC center and its 300 liter bioreactor. BTEC expects to be able to graduate approximately 100 students in the Biomanufacturing minor once classes are fully subscribed. The Center is now graduating more Chemical Engineering students with Biomanufacturing minors than industry is able to absorb (BTEC has been able to fill all of Novartis’ needs to date).

Discounting these graduation rates by 25% to account for graduates who will pursue additional education, BLS & Co projects that North Carolina’s colleges and universities can supply an annual allotment of at least:

Table 5: Selected Undergrad Degrees: Triangle Region

Average Annual Degrees: 1999-2007

Function CIP Code Curriculum Grads From Triangle*Grads at Univ’s In Triangle

Process Development 140701 Chemical Engineering 42 97

143501 Industrial Engineering 28 62

Subtotal 70 159

Plant Ops & Mfg Support 150612 Industrial Technology 21 0

150613 Manufacturing Technology 3 0

150699 Industrial Production Tech 3 0

Subtotal 27 0

QA/QC 260101 Biology/Biological Sciences 288 794

260202 Biochemistry 34 80

260204 Molecular Biology 1 1

260502 Microbiology, General 17 43

261102 Biostatistics 2 7

261201 Biotechnology 0 0

400501 Chemistry, General 93 240

Subtotal 435 1165

Total 532 1324

Source: University of North Carolina, Academic Planning Inventory, (http://fred .northcarolina .edu/enrindex .html)

*Note: Grads from Triangle area are based on share (%) of students at each univ reporting Triangle as residence

18


Table 6: Selected Graduate & Ph.D Degrees: Triangle Region

Average Annual Degrees: 1999-2007

Function CIP Code Curriculum Grads From Triangle*Grads at Univ’s in Triangle

Process Development 140701 Chemical Engineering 11 33

143501 Industrial Engineering 13 35

143601 Manufacturing Engineering 2 15

Subtotal 26 83

Plant Ops & Mfg Support 150612 Industrial Technology 5 0

QA/QC 260101 Biology/Biological Sciences 17 30

260202 Biochemistry 5 28

260204 Molecular Biology 0 2

260401 Cell/Cellular Biology 1 13

260502 Microbiology, General 2 10

260503 Medical Microbiology 2 10

260801 Genetics, General 3 19

261001 Pharmacology 2 9

261004 Toxicology 5 16

261101 Biometry/Biometrics 4 13

261102 Biostatistics 6 28

261201 Biotechnology 4 14

269999 Biological and Biomedical Sci 0 0

400501 Chemistry, General 15 88

Subtotal 66 280

Total 97 363

Source: University of North Carolina, Academic Planning Inventory (http://fred .northcarolina .edu/enrindex .html)

*Note: Grads from Triangle area are based on share (%) of students at each univ reporting Triangle as residence

1,200 graduates from the Triangle who’ve majored in •Chemistry, Biology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, etc. to satisfy the small annual need for relatively inex-perienced QA/QC staffers;

172 graduates from the Triangle who’ve majored in •Chemical Engineering or Industrial Engineering to satisfy the need for approximately six inexperienced process development staffers; and

20 graduates from the Triangle who’ve majored in Indus-•trial Technology, Manufacturing Technology, etc. and could step into professional or managerial positions in plant operations and manufacturing support.

4.6 Graduate & PhD. Enrollment and DegreesLastly, we considered the potential pool of students grad-uating with advanced degrees in the biopharmaceutical disciplines. Even more so than their undergraduate coun-terparts, these persons would likely assume either process development or quality control positions, either at a higher level, or at the same level but with less actual on-the-job experience. The average number of annual graduates avail-able in the Triangle (460 total) constitutes a significant addition to the labor pool.

19


Table 7: Summary of all Sources of Labor: Triangle Region

Function Total HiresAnnual Hires

Target Yield @ 15:1 Ratio

Projected Annual Supply Source of Supply

Existing Biopharma Manufacturing Labor

Manufacturing/Production 140 70 1,050 4,297 Labor Force

QA/QC 90 45 675 2,898 Labor Force

Process Development 28 14 210 1,020 Labor Force

Plant Ops/Manufacturing Support 40 20 300 522 Labor Force

Emerging Biopharma Manufacturing Labor

Manufacturing/Production 60 30 — 481BioWork and Community Colleges

QA/QC 10 5 — 1,653Community Colleges & Universities

Process Development 12 6 — 281 Universities

Plant Ops/Manufacturing Support 0 0 — 190

Community Colleges & Universities

5. CONCLUSIONS

Table 7 below provides a synopsis of our project’s talent requirements and potential sources of qualified workers or labor market entrants that have the potential to satisfy this demand. Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Co concludes that the pipelines of existing and emerging biomanufactur-ing talent in North Carolina’s Triangle Region are large

enough, diverse enough and talented enough to likely sus-tain several additional biopharma manufacturing plants without stressing the regional labor market or the state’s community college and university systems.

To maintain the area’s competitive advantage educators, workforce development organizations and industry must address reported shortages in plant operations and man-ufacturing support skills (primarily instrumentation and control technicians).

20


REFERENCES

Endnotes1 “Labor Loosens Up,” Site Selection Magazine, July 20012 “Learning Curves Ahead.” Site Selection Magazine, August

2007.3 “Job Creation and the Knowledge Economy: Lessons from

North Carolina’s Life Science Manufacturing Initiative.” Nich-ola Lowe, Economic Development Quarterly, November 2007, and Life Science Manufacturing in North Carolina: A Case Study for Workforce Development.” Carolina Context, June 2007

4 “Conducting a Community Audit,” US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. August 2000.

5 “Signs of Life: The Growth of Biotechnology Centers in the U.S.,” The Brookings Institution, 2001

6 “Best Performing Cities, 2007,” Ross DeVol, Armen Bedrous-sian, Soojung Kim. Milken Institute, 2007.

7 “Job Creation and the Knowledge Economy: Lessons from North Carolina’s Life Science Manufacturing Initiative.” Nich-ola Lowe, Economic Development Quarterly, November 2007

For more information, contact:

Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Company Andrew Shapiro 47 Hulfish Street

Princeton, NJ 08542 Phone 609-613-4273

FAX 609-924-8817

North Carolina Biotechnology Center William Bullock Statewide Operations and Economic Development 15 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3547 Phone 919-541-9366 FAX 919-990-9544 www.ncbiotech.org

Report Date—January 15, 2009 09-109 SO 01/10

NORTH CAROLINA BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING ......2009/01/15 · 3 TRIANGLE REGION BIOPHARMA...

Documents

Transcript of NORTH CAROLINA BIOPHARMA MANUFACTURING ......2009/01/15 · 3 TRIANGLE REGION BIOPHARMA...