JOB TRENDS FORECAST - MassBioEd · PDF file2 MassBioEd Foundation 2016 Biotechnology Job...

The Digest of Biotech Job Trends

Massachusetts

2016

JOB TRENDS FORECAST

2

MassBioEd Foundation 2016 Biotechnology Job Trends Forecast

About the Digest

The Digest of Biotech Jobs Trends in Massachusetts consists of an on-going series of

publications that include Briefs, 3-Month Job Trends reports, and an Annual Jobs Trends

Forecast. The Briefs present basic data and analysis on particular aspects of biopharma

industry job trends. The initial 2015 Briefs are focused upon entry level position job trends

in the biopharmaceutical industry.

The objectives in publishing the Briefs is to provide basic information about job listings

trends, skills required of candidates, prevalence of degree requirements for high trending

occupations. The Briefs are intentionally limited in commentary. Instead, they are

intended to form a basis for additional study on job trends, skill requirements of candidates

seeking positions in the industry, and how training and higher education programs can

align with industry needs. The Annual Job Trends Forecast is intended to provide greater

insight based on additional study in these areas.

About the MassBioEd Foundation

MassBioEd engages teachers, inspires students, and guides the life sciences workforce. Our

BioTeach program supports Massachusetts teachers as they work to engage students

through lab-centered, inquiry-based learning. Our Job Trends initiative identifies

workforce needs and illuminates the pathway from the classroom to careers in the life

sciences.

Acknowledgements

The analysis found in the Forecast was conducted by Mark Bruso, Research Associate,

under the direction of MassBioEd Foundation Executive Director, Peter Abair. Erica

Dickinson, Product Support Manager at Burning Glass provided able assistance to the

MassBioEd research team in effectively using data from Burning Glass Technologies.

MassBio, the industry council serving the biopharmaceutical community of the

Massachusetts region, provided support for this series and MassBioEd’s on-going job

trends initiative.

For more MassBioEd job trends analysis, visit MassBioEd.org.

3


MassBioEd Foundation Board of Directors

Renee Connolly, Chair MilliporeSigma

Christopher Barr, Vice Chairman Biogen Stacie Sawchak Aerestad, Clerk Foley Hoag

Colleen DeSimone, Treasurer Syros Pharmaceuticals

Joan Abrams, Ph.D. Cambridge Rindge and Latin

Lauren Celano Propel Careers

William F. Ciambrone

Robert Coughlin MassBio

Debbie Durso-Bumpus Blueprint Medicines

Robert Gottlieb RMG Associates

John Hodgman Tufts University Gordon Institute

Christopher Murphy Sanofi Genzyme

Sridaran Natesan, Ph.D. Sanofi

David Reif, Ph.D. AstraZeneca

Steven Richter, Ph.D Avista Pharma Solutions

Alan Weiss, Ph.D Enzymatics, Inc.

Skills Advisory Group Members

Dave Anderson

EMD Serono

Aron Clarke

Shire

Gale Cohen

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Debbie Durso-Bumpus

Blueprint Medicines

Zaven Kaprielian

Amgen

Sarah Larson

Foundation Medicine

Ryan MacLean

GE Healthcare

Patrick Marshall

StratAcuity

Christopher Murphy

Sanofi Genzyme

Sanjeev Sant

Amgen

4


Introduction

The focus of this report is upon job trends in the biopharmaceutical industry in

Massachusetts. In addition, the Job Trends Forecast projects future job demand trends

through May of 2018.

At the close of 2015, the MassBioEd Foundation embarked on a job trends initiative for the

purpose of forecasting job trends, identifying gaps between job demand and workforce

supply, and identifying skills required for high trending jobs. Our ultimate goal is to

demystify the pathway for job seekers to jobs in the industry by using data, analysis, and

insight from industry and the education and training community. Thus far, our efforts have

been focused on better understanding entry level hiring and the skills required for such

positions. Our Briefs series includes detailed analysis of entry level hiring. In addition, we

publish a quarterly 3-Month Biotechnology Job Trends report, intended as a snapshot in

industry job demand.

Massachusetts has a long history in endeavoring to leverage its high skills, knowledge-

based economy into greater economic opportunities for its residents, while supporting

growth in STEM industries. In 2004, Massachusetts hosted the nation’s first statewide

STEM Summit (i.e. the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In

2008, MassBio and the nascent Massachusetts Life Sciences Center, funded and published

Growing Talent: Meeting the Evolving Needs of the Massachusetts Life Sciences Industry. This

landmark report, prepared by the UMass Donahue Institute, provided important focus

upon the workforce needs of the life sciences in particular. Among its findings was a

projection of 11,000 jobs being added to the life sciences industry by 2014. In fact, in the

biopharmaceutical sub-industry alone, 14,342 jobs were added by 2014, a 31 percent

increase.

While a global economic downturn interceded since Growing Talent, the biopharmaceutical

industry continued its growth in Massachusetts. As it did, other important initiatives

around STEM education sustained focus upon the STEM workforce. In 2009, the

Massachusetts STEM Advisory Council was established, providing a continuing means of

assessing programming around STEM education and identifying best practices. In 2015,

Governor Baker established his Workforce Skills Cabinet, for the purpose of supporting a

high skills pipeline of workers through creative partnerships between employers,

educators, and the state workforce development system.

MassBioEd’s job trends initiative is ongoing and intended to meet a need identified over the

years by initiatives noted above and in MassBio’s Impact 2020 report, published in 2014.

As Impact 2020 reported:

5


“Both companies and universities point out that the lack of a reliable, ongoing

source of data on job demand in the life sciences industry creates challenges for

both parties around workforce training and planning.”

In the 2011 Jobs for the Future publication, Aligning Community Colleges to Their Local

Labor Markets, author David Altstadt also noted that educators are “hampered by a lack of

detailed, up-to-date information about occupations and skills in demand.” Also noted was

the opportunity presented by emerging real-time intelligence tools on job listings to

potentially provide reliable sources for information on job demand in the marketplace.

MassBioEd, through its job trends initiative, has utilized such new sources of hiring

intelligence, along with traditional government sources, and has committed to providing

regular reporting on job trends in the industry. MassBioEd produces Briefs on hiring

dynamics in the industry, convenes an industry-based Skills Advisory Group to advise

research on skills required for positions in the industry, and, to the best extent possible,

serves as a guide to the education and training communities, as well as job seekers, on

industry talent demands and skills required of high trending jobs.

This Job Trends Forecast joins MassBioEd’s other workforce-related publications as part of

its Digest of Biotech Job Trends, a compendium of MassBioEd workforce publications

compiled on an annual basis.

This Job Trends Forecast has the following finite objectives of providing:

new data based on a survey of industry employers of hiring issues,

latest job demand trends based on job listings,

review of Massachusetts higher education in graduating students with degrees in

biotechnology-related fields,

and forecasting industry job trends through May of 2018

6


2015 Massachusetts biopharmaceutical job listings jumped by 35%.

4,325 –forecasted

number of new jobs that the industry will need to fill by May of 2018.

87% of employers

report that they will increase employment in the next 12 months.

25% more students

received degrees in biotechnology-related programs from Massachusetts colleges and universities in 2014 than in 2010.

78% of employers

report more difficulty in hiring now than three years ago.

Executive Summary

The Massachusetts biopharmaceutical industry is in a prolonged period of expansion for

which we see no close through 2018. Actual

employment in the industry grew by 4,362 jobs

between 2011 and 2014, a 7.8 percent increase. In

2014 alone, the industry grew by a robust 4.9

percent.

In the period that forms the basis of this study, 2010-

2015, the number of job listings for the

Massachusetts industry increased dramatically. We

have found a strong correlation between job listings

and actual employment growth. Demand, as

measured by job listings, grew by 35 percent in

2015. In the first quarter of 2016, demand

increased, with the total number of job listings 38

percent higher than during the same period in 2015.

Using a conservative methodology, MassBioEd

forecasts that the industry will need to fill an

additional 4,325 jobs by May of 2018, a 6.7 percent

growth rate.

The Forecast also documents the demonstrable rise

in the number of graduates from Massachusetts

colleges and universities with biotechnology-related

degrees. This rise is at every degree level, but

especially pronounced at the Bachelor’s degree level.

Massachusetts public higher education saw a 57

percent rise in the number of Bachelor’s degrees

awarded from 2010 to 2015, though growth was less

robust at the graduate level and there was an actual

decline at the doctoral level. In private higher

education in Massachusetts, the number of degrees

awarded in biotechnology-related Bachelor’s and

graduate programs increased by 1,583 in 2015 over

2010 levels. Massachusetts community colleges

“over-performed” in the period from 2010-2014, producing more graduates each year than

there were jobs available at the associate level in the industry.

7


Despite the performance of higher education in Massachusetts, surveyed

biopharmaceutical companies still report pressures on hiring. As 87 percent of surveyed

biopharmaceutical employers indicated that they would be adding net new employees in

the next 12 months, 78 percent of employers indicated that it is more difficult to find

qualified talent than it was three years ago in 2013. Employers have greater difficulty

hiring at higher experience levels. Employers report particular difficulty in hiring in four

job areas: clinical research management, quality, regulatory, and process development.

Given the unprecedented growth of the industry in recent years, with dozens of notable

facility expansions, these pressures on hiring can best be seen as quantity versus quality

issues. By a better than two-to-one margin, employers who note a difference between

candidates of today versus three years ago report that the today’s candidates are better

prepared. The quantity of qualified candidates has risen in the period studied, but the

quantity of demand has in some job categories outstripped supply. With the strong

education and training infrastructure in Massachusetts, strategies can be developed to

meet employer needs for high demand positions using insight from this and other studies,

as well as continued dialogue between partners in higher education and industry.

8


Job Demand The Massachusetts biopharmaceutical industry is in a prolonged period of expansion for

which we see no close through 2018. The total number of industry job listings jumped by

35.5% in 2015 over 2014. New job listings by month in 2015 outpaced monthly new job

listings of 2014 in every month, without exception. This trend increased in the first quarter

of 2016, which showed the job listing growth rate increasing to 37%. January and March of

2016 had the most industry listings for Massachusetts of all months analyzed by

MassBioEd.

What do job listings tell us about actual hiring? By comparing the moving average of

biopharmaceutical industry job listing in Massachusetts to actual employment, we see a

strong correlation between the number of job listings and actual employment.

1373

1579 1546

1757

1397

1097

1324

1966 1891

1967

1800

1626

1904

1720

2186

2337

2004 2009

2205

2481

2140

2502 2434

2388

Massachusetts BioPharma Industry, New Job Postings, Month-by-Month Comparison, 2014 vs. 2015

2014 2015

9


Moving Average of Biopharma Job Listings and Employment

In our series of 3-Month Job Trends reports, MassBioEd provides listings data on the leading

occupations in the industry in terms of listings and growth by category on a study period

and the same period of the previous year. This table presents information on the leading

occupations by listings for the Q1 2016 period. The leading occupations remain very

consistent between periods, with the broad category of medical scientist always as the

leading occupation. Among these occupations are many that employers, as illustrated in a

later section, indicate are particularly difficult positions to fill, including scientist, clinical

research manager, process engineer, and quality positions.

Growth is found at every experience level

Growth is found at every degree level

Growth is found in every region

61,000

61,500

62,000

62,500

63,000

63,500

64,000

64,500

65,000

65,500

66,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Tota

l # E

mp

lyed

in In

du

stry

# o

f Jo

b L

isti

ngs

Job Listings Industry Employment

37.8% 12-month

Growth in

Job Postings

10


Top Listings by Occupation, Q1 2016

In our Briefs series, we provide a great deal of research on job listing trends at various

degree and experience levels. Mostly, trends do not indicate strong movement in terms of

required experience or degree levels required for positions in the period of study since

2010. However, entry level positions have increased slightly to account for 26 percent of

all listed positions, up from 23 percent of all listings as we reported in 2015.

11


Top Companies by Job Listings

On this and the next page, the organizations with the most job listings in Q1 2016 are

presented. In the listings, we separate companies from non-profit organizations (e.g.

hospitals and universities).

The number of jobs that an organization will post will rise and fall according to that

organization’s business plan. A high number of listings in one quarter or year and a small

number of listings by the same organization in another quarter or year may reflect a

number of different factors, including that the organization met its hiring goals in keeping

with its business plan in one quarter and necessarily has fewer listings in a subsequent

quarter. A rise or fall in the number of job listings in one quarter should not be used as a

barometer of an organization’s health. We provide these listings for the more basic

purpose of showing which companies influenced talent supply and demand in hiring in one

particular quarter.

493

474

400

280

279

210

198

167

115

104

71

71

58

56

44

Sanofi Genzyme

Takeda Pharmaceuticals

Novartis

Pfizer

Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Amgen

Shire

Baxter International…

Medtronic

Merck & Company


Biogen

Astrazeneca

Quest Diagnostics

AbbVie

Top Employers by Job Postings, Massachusetts Life Sciences

Companies, Q1 2015

1101

506

372

332

272

178

152

148

142

134

131

100

92

80

61

Sanofi Genzyme

Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Takeda Pharmaceuticals

Novartis

Pfizer

Charles River Laboratories

Medtronic

Merck & Company

Amgen

Quest Diagnostics

Biogen

Smith & Nephew

PerkinElmer


AbbVie

Top Employers by Job Postings, Massachusetts Life Sciences

Companies, Q1 2016

12


Regional Breakdown

Massachusetts, like any complex economy, can be broken down into many different ways to

produce informed observations. We based these six geographic areas in Massachusetts on

those defined by the MassBio’s Economic Development Advisory Group as distinct sub-

markets of the Massachusetts life sciences supercluster.

100

82

58

57

47

Harvard University

Partners Healthcare

University OfMassachusetts…

Boston Children'sHospital

MassachusettsGeneral Hospital

Top Employers by Job Postings, Massachusetts Life

Sciences Non-Profits, Q1 2015

243

77

64

59

51

MassachusettsGeneral Hospital

Boston Children'sHospital

Dana FarberCancer Institute

HarvardUniversity

Boston University

Top Employers by Job Postings, Massachusetts Life

Sciences Non-Profits, Q1 2016

13


We calculated the First Quarter 2015 and 2016 job listings by these regions. The

Cambridge-Boston “Core” maintained its spot as the regional leader in job listings in both

Q1 2015 and Q1 2016. Approximately 56% of statewide industry job posts originated from

that locale.

The largest net change in job postings between the past two First Quarters occurred in the

128/Suburbs region, which experienced an approximate decrease of 40% between the two

time periods. In part, this reveals the effects of two major employers in the region at

different employment phases. Shire, which posted 186 job listings online in Q1 2015,

reached hiring goals and listed only a few jobs in Q1 2016. Biogen, which has been scaling

down its Weston footprint and growing at its Cambridge headquarters, also had a marked

decline in listings in this region during the same timeframe.

In contrast, the Worcester/I-495 region saw a sizeable increase in its share of job listings,

more than doubling the number of job listings between periods and increasing its share of

total postings to 16.5% in Q1 2016 from 9.5% in Q1 2015. Sanofi Genzyme led in the

region in total listings in the period, followed by Quest Diagnostics – newly located in

Marlborough.

Jobs Listings by Region, Q1 2015 v Q1 2016, and Share of all Listings

Region Q1 2015 Q1 2015 Share Q1 2016 Q1 2016 Share

Core 2,957 55.5% 3,747 56.0%

Northeast 458 8.6% 752 11.2%

128/Suburbs 1,191 22.3% 719 10.8%

Southeast 136 2.6% 273 4.1%

Worcester/I-495 504 9.5% 1,104 16.5%

Western Mass 84 1.6% 91 1.4%

Total 5,330 6,687

14


Leading Job Listing Companies by Region, Q1, 2016

Company Listings Company Listings

Medtronic 13 Sanofi Genzyme 469

Pfizer 8 Quest Diagnostics 96

Sanofi Genzyme 7 Bristol-Myers Squibb 67

Quintiles 4 AbbVie 48

Novartis 4 Charles River Laboratories 45

Takeda Pharmaceuticals 4 PerkinElmer 42

Quest Diagnostics 4 Danaher Corporation 32

Life Laboratories 3 UMass Medical School 31

Smith College 3 LabCorp 20

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. 3 Glaxosmithkline 19

Western Massachusetts Worcester/I-495


Instrumentation Laboratory 53 Charles River Laboratories 121

PerkinElmer 40 Pfizer 89

Sanofi Genzyme 37 Smith & Nephew 54

Astrazeneca 32 Merck & Company 47

Ortho Clinical Diagnostics 32 Medtronic 46

Biogen 20 Parexel 24

Thermo Fisher 19 Raytheon 21

Tesaro, Inc 10 Bruker Company 17

Bristol-Myers Squibb 9 Amgen 14

Integra Lifesciences 9 Quest Diagnostics 13

128/Suburbs Northeast


Medtronic 75 Sanofi Genzyme 583

Smith & Nephew 45 Vertex Pharmaceuticals 506

Cape Cod Healthcare 27 Takeda Pharmaceuticals 368

Merck & Company 18 Novartis 323

Pfizer 9 MGH 233

Quest Diagnostics 5 Pfizer 145

Southcoast Health System 5 Amgen 128

UMass Medical School 4 Biogen 111

Celldex Therapeutics 4 Merck & Company 80

Pioneer Data Systems 4 Boston Children's Hospital 77

SE/South Coast Cambridge/Boston Core

15


On this and the following pages, six charts detail the top ten most frequent job listings in

each of the six regions. These numbers are the totals for the entire industry in a given

region in the First Quarter of 2016. The Location Quotient details the concentration of

these positions relative to the statewide composition during the same timeframe – every

hundredth of a point above or below 1 is equal to a higher or lower concentration of

listings for an occupation of 1%. For example, medical scientists in the Core region in Q1

2016 (below) had an LQ of 1.2, signifying that during that period of time the region had a

20% higher concentration of medical scientist job listings than the state did as a whole.

Note: The larger the sample size, the better. For regions with a small number of listings,

location quotients lose meaning. As a result, we do not list the Western Mass. region

because of the low number of job posts during Q1 2016. While the number of listings is

also small in the SE/South Coast region, we do include that region in this section, as the

positions listed for the region correlate well to the types of companies located there and is

sufficiently indicative of the industry’s job market in the region.

Occupation – Cambridge/Boston Core Region Job Postings Location Quotient

Medical Scientist 450 1.20

Medical Director 286 1.50

Program Manager 212 1.34

Biologist 134 1.20

Sales Representative 107 1.04

Chemist 86 0.87

Software Developer / Engineer 86 0.83

Clinical Research Coordinator / Manager 84 1.26

Healthcare Administrator 70 1.46

Medical Laboratory Technician 68 0.80

Occupation – Northeast Region Job Postings Location Quotient


Chemist 37 1.87


Industrial Engineer 20 2.55

Mechanical Engineer 18 1.73

Financial Analyst 16 2.76


Bookkeeper / Accounting Clerk 13 2.47


Financial Manager 13 1.52

16


Occupation – 128/Suburbs Region Job Postings Location Quotient




Biologist 23 1.06

Office / Administrative Assistant 22 1.81

Computer Programmer 19 2.72



Mechanical Engineer 14 1.40

Chemist 13 0.70

Occupation – Southeast Region Job Postings Location Quotient

Regulatory Affairs Specialist 17 7.71


Industrial Engineer 14 4.86

Software QA Engineer / Tester 8 5.42

Technical Writer 6 3.30

Manufacturing Engineer 6 4.07

Nursing Assistant 6 3.46

Compliance Manager 5 1.45

Office / Administrative Assistant 5 1.06

Bookkeeper / Accounting Clerk 5 2.51

Occupation – Worc./I- 495 Region Job Postings Location Quotient



Chemical / Process Engineer 45 2.78


Chemist 39 1.33

Biologist 38 1.16

Quality Control Analyst 24 1.95

Customer Service Representative 23 3.12



17


Forecasting Job Demand

As part of our job trends initiative, we are committed to introduce effective forecasting of

job trends as a means of aiding planning around workforce development efforts. The

biopharmaceutical industry, like other industries, is subject to evolving workforce needs.

The Massachusetts biopharma industry of 2016 is very different than that of 1996 or 2006.

MassBioEd took a very conservative path in developing a methodology to forecast future

job demand. We began by limiting the scope of the forecast to just two years into the

future. As we gain confidence in our methodology, we will consider expanding the horizon

of the forecast.

In order to forecast occupational needs, MassBioEd needed to first estimate the industry

employment in May 2018, subsequently working down from there. We split up all seven

sectors of the BioPharma industry on their own, each with a model that analyzed native

trends and factors unique to each individual industry to come up with projected increases

between May 2015 (latest available data with staffing patterns) and May 2018. The result

was the following graphic, which illustrates the employment totals in May of 2018 of three

groups (Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Biotechnology Research and Development, and the

ancillary sectors of our industry). For more information, please reference the projections

methodology, presented in the Appendix.

18


The Pharmaceutical Manufacturing sector is forecasted to grow by 11.4%, or add a net of

1,234 jobs between May 2015 and May 2018. This means that the sector would expand at a

rate of 3.7% per year for the three-year period, the fastest of the three sectors in the

graphic and second only to Medical Testing Laboratories (4.1% per year) in the industry.

The largest sector by employment in Massachusetts, Research and Development in

Biotechnology, is expected to grow at a slower pace, clocking in at 1.8% compound annual

growth rate, expanding by approximately 2,000 new net jobs by May 2018.

The agglomeration of the remaining five sectors shows, on average, a 2.2% annual growth

rate, or a shade fewer than 6% for the three-year period. Of those five sectors, industry

growth within the Hospitals NAICS

code is the slowest, at only 1.5% over

three years.

This amounts to an annual compound

growth rate in the industry of 2.2%.

As mentioned in the methodology in

the appendix, these projections are

conservative in nature and do not include any severe outside shocks to the economy that

may occur during the same time frame. The models examined industry data from 2011-

2015, and, if those conditions prevail moving forward, the employment totals will in all

likelihood overshoot our projections. Note that this is a measure of increase in

employment, not the number of openings.

The table on the following page is the result of predicting each occupation’s share of each

industry, multiplied by the projected industry size in 2018, compared against the May 2015

totals (see Appendix). The table is sorted by the total net change of occupations within the

industry between 2015 and 2018. Medical Scientists, the largest occupation by

employment in the industry, is also top in projected net gain. Sales Representatives, #3 by

total gain, is first among large occupations in projected growth, with 38%. The top of this

list is dominated by occupations from the life science and engineering occupational

families, with the exceptions being Sales Reps, General and Operations Managers, and

Software Developers. Most in the table exhibit projected growth rates far exceeding the

industry-wide 6.7% for the three-year period.

Not pictured are the occupations with the largest projected decline: Phlebotomists

Machinists, Life Scientists (All Other), and Medical Assistants are all expected to shed jobs

between now and 2018.

The total increase in employment by May 2018 is forecast to be

4,325, a 6.7% increase.

19


Top 15 Occupations by Projected Increase, 2015-2018

Higher Education and the Challenge of Supply

The Massachusetts industry seeks candidates at a higher experience and degree level than

most other leading biopharma states. While the Massachusetts biopharmaceutical industry

has a strong manufacturing component and includes many companies with integrated

operations that include both research and manufacturing, the industry has a pronounced

presence in research. Because of the particular size of the sector (Middlesex County, for

example, has greatest number and concentration of biotechnology researchers in the

nation), degree requirements of the industry in Massachusetts are higher than most other

clusters in the nation. The prevalent type of biopharmaceutical manufacturing in

Massachusetts, the more complex biologics manufacturing, also manifests in the higher

degree requirements found in the state.

20


21


Massachusetts higher education has largely risen to the challenge of graduating more

students in biotechnology-related degree programs. The number of biotechnology-related

higher education graduates has increased in the most recent 5-year period. Massachusetts

public higher

education has

seen a rise in

biotechnology-

related

graduations at

every degree

level except the

PhD level,

which declined.

Massachusetts

public higher

education

outperformed

national public

higher

education in

terms of

increases in

biotechnology-

related graduates at the Bachelor’s level. Public higher

education graduations from biotechnology-related programs increased by 501, to 1,380

graduates, between 2010 and 2015, an increase of 56 percent.

The following graphs present graduation trends at the various degree levels. Also

presented on the accompanying charts, are the actual graduation numbers, as well as the

public higher education graduate share of all Massachusetts graduates.

With the dramatic increase of graduates at the Bachelor’s level, Massachusetts public

higher education’s share of all graduates grew to 28.3 percent in 2015, from 24.5 percent in

2010. At the graduate and doctorate levels, private institutions grew share of graduations.

22


Bachelor’s Degree Level

YEAR Public

Share

Private

Grads

Public

Grads

2015 28.3% 3,495 1,380

2014 26.6% 3,628 1,318

2013 26.4% 3,351 1,203

2012 25.0% 3,225 1,073

2011 25.5% 2,709 929

2010 24.5% 2,705 879

Graduate Degree Level

Associate Degree Level

It is important to note the performance of students at the community college level. The

number of graduates from biotechnology programs at Massachusetts community colleges

rose from 211 in 2010 to 261 in 2014, the last year for which we have data. This 23 percent

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Biotech-Related Graduates vs. Biotech Graduate Degree Min. Listings,

Massachusetts, 2010 - 2015

Private Univ. Graduates Public Univ. Graduates

Listings

YEAR Public Share

Private Grads

Public Grads

2015 9.1% 2,451 244

2014 10.0% 2,373 264

2013 9.6% 2,353 251

2012 11.0% 2,120 261

2011 12.4% 1,733 246

2010 12.4% 1,658 235

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Annual Biotech-Related Graduates vs. Biotech Listings, Massachusetts, 2010 -

2015

Public Univ. Graduates Private Univ. Graduates

Listings

23


increase coincides with a determined effort by community colleges and their partners to

better align programming at many community colleges with the needs of the life sciences

industry. MassBioEd and MassBio were involved in one of those initiatives, the

Massachusetts Life Sciences Education Consortium (MLSEC). The MLSEC worked with

community colleges to bring industry to the table to review community college

biotechnology programs and determine desired competencies in biotechnology for

associate graduates from such programs. The MLSEC also awarded endorsements to

community colleges for meeting competency standards co-developed by the institutions

and industry.

Many community colleges have established strong industry advisory groups to continue to

guide program development. There are ongoing federally funded initiatives in which

Massachusetts community colleges are focused on improving programmatic alignment with

industry needs (one of which MassBioEd is involved in as a facilitator). Our research

suggest that Massachusetts community colleges “over-performed” in the period from 2010-

2014, producing more graduates in each year than there were jobs available at the

associate level in the industry. This finding is highly qualified, however. While many

associate degree-holders do aim at entering the workforce, many others use their

community college education as a stepping stone toward a four-year degree. Given the

technical-focus of community college programs, these students should have an advantage

over their fellow four-year degree program counterparts in the area of technical lab skills.

Associate Degree Graduates and Entry Level Listings

24


Several companies have made a concerted effort to hire associate degree level candidates

for positions. For example, both Shire and Sanofi Genzyme have expressed very

satisfactory results with such hiring, especially for production-related positions. While the

question of “over-listing positions” (listing for a Bachelor’s requirement when the job could

be filled by a qualified associate degree holder), won’t be answered here, MassBioEd’s

Skills Advisory Group discussed at length the Associate versus Bachelor’s candidate. Given

the high number of 4-year degree graduates in Massachusetts and as evidenced by the

dramatic increase of Bachelor’s graduates from biotechnology-related programs,

employers feel a greater degree of security in listing positions with a Bachelor’s

requirement. Community college graduates, based on the competencies in place for

biotechnology programs, possess strong technical skills. However, even in cases where

such technical skills are required, an employer may opt for a Bachelor’s degree holder,

because it is assumed that the Bachelor’s candidate will have a greater understanding of

underlying science and can become more proficient in technical lab skills once on the job.

That being said, it is important to note that job listings with associate degree requirements

will rise along with overall increases in job listings. There are jobs in the industry for

associate degree holders, as well as those with only high school diplomas. However, while

these positions will persist, community colleges may better serve biotechnology graduates

continuing their education by connecting them to articulation agreements with four-year

colleges.

In this regard, well-structured and promoted articulation agreements in biotechnology

between community colleges and four-year colleges are essential if community college

graduates are to maximize the benefits of their associate degree education in biotech.

Industry Perceptions of the Hiring Marketplace MassBioEd developed industry insight for this report by means of a company survey in

April and May of 2016. This survey was built upon earlier polling of industry members at a

MassBio Forum in early-April 2016 at which 20 companies were represented. Forty-eight

companies, representing employment of approximately 9,325 workers in Massachusetts,

provided responses to the survey.

The respondent companies represented the spectrum of company sizes and types featured

in the Massachusetts cluster.

25


Respondents: Company Types

Every responding company indicated that it had increased employment in the past 12 months. Thirty percent of companies indicated that they had added 51 or more employees in the prior 12 months.

87% of companies reported that they planned to increase net employment in Massachusetts in the next 12 months. 78% of companies reported that it is either more difficult or much more difficult to find qualified talent than it was three years ago (2013).

93% reported that it was more difficult to hire for Experienced positions (requiring 3 or more years of experience) than for Entry Level positions (2 years or less experience).

Number of weeks it takes to make a new hire from the time the job is listed

28.9%

6.7%

31.1%

13.3%

4.4%

15.6%Office-only biopharma company

Research-focused

Manufacturing-focused

Integrated - Research and Manufacturing-focused

Contract Research

Contract Manufacturing

8.7%

39.1%

39.1%

13.0%

6-9 weeks

10-12 weeks

More than 12 weeks

1-5 weeks

26


Entry Level Hiring In its 2015 Briefs series on entry level positions, MassBioEd developed a considerable amount of analysis on the dynamics of hiring at the entry level, those positions requiring two years or less of experience. Entry level job listings represented 26 percent of all listings in Q1 2016. Having developed the Briefs series on such positions from the demand perspective, our survey was constructed to extract more information from company respondents on perceived supply issues.

91.3% of responding companies reported that “soft skills” (teamwork, communications, decision-making, etc.) were VERY IMPORTANT in considering new hires (at all experience levels).

73% of companies reported that for science-based jobs, knowledge of the underlying science and critical thinking skills were more important than technical skills in the lab or in manufacturing.

48% of respondents said that at the time of hiring entry level candidates for science-based positions the employer doesn’t know enough about their lab skills until they are on the job. Another 9% reported that candidates are typically unable to demonstrate sufficient technical skills.

What is the greatest issue in hiring at the Entry Level?

27.3%

27.3%

38.6%

6.8%

Lack sufficient technical skills

Lack soft skills

Meet our requirements but are difficult tohire due to competition from other

employers

No issues finding qualified candidates

27


A high percentage of companies, especially research-based companies, provide little-to-no

training to incoming science-based employees. While 46 percent of companies provide

training for all new science-focused hires, 18 percent provide training to only some new

hires and 36 percent provide no training at all. A very high percentage of those companies

that provide no training are research-based companies. The companies most likely to

provide training for all new hires for science-based positions are those companies that are

manufacturing-focused.

Difficult-to-Fill Positions

Company respondents were asked to provide insight on position categories particularly

difficult to fill. Given the large number of research positions in the Massachusetts industry,

it is the most commonly cited difficult-to-fill job category. For all respondents, two other

job categories were noted as highly difficult – process development and regulatory affairs

positions. When considering only responses from manufacturing and integrated

companies (those with both research and manufacturing operations in Massachusetts),

quality area positions became the second most difficult-to-fill positions noted, behind only

process development and ahead of regulatory positions.

Survey Respondents on the Competition for Talent

“We are a small bio tech company and can't compete with big pharma companies when it comes to compensation.”

“We are all fighting for the same talent!”

“We are growing but can't match the global companies on benefits.”

28


Most Difficult Positions to Fill, All Respondents

Most Difficult to Fill Positions, Manufacturers and Integrated Companies

Occupation(s) 2012 Pop.

2015 Pop.

Actual Growth, 2012-15

Proj. Growth, 2015-18

2018 Proj.

Clinical Research Coordinator/Managers

1,382 1,500 8.6% 7.8% 1,618

Medical Scientists 8,160 9,210 12.9% 8.9% 10,030

Compliance Officer/ Regulatory Affairs 644 1,055 63.7% 6.7% 1,125

Chemists 1,628 1,235 -24.1% 16.8% 1,443

Quality Control Analyst/ Quality Inspector/Quality Systems Managers

1,375 1,779 29.4% 7.3% 1,908

29


The above table details the hard-to-fill occupations, as voted on by our industry survey

respondents. The table lays out the May 2012, May 2015, and projected May 2018

employment totals for either a single occupations, or a group of similar occupations. To the

far left is a column detailing the observed growth over the three-year period between 2012

and 2015, in addition to the projected growth rate in the three years following 2015.

Massachusetts Is Not Alone

Massachusetts is not an island in facing hiring challenges in the industry. Other life

sciences clusters are facing spiraling demand as represented by increased job listings.

State YoY

Growth Yearly

GQ Q1

Growth Q1 GQ

2015 Openings

California 37.6% 0.91 47.8% 0.79 21,673

Maryland 58.3% 1.42 128.2% 2.14 5,481

Massachusetts 45.0% 1.09 56.1% 0.93 13,191

New Jersey 74.3% 1.80 82.6% 1.37 11,771

New York 46.9% 1.14 36.2% 0.60 7,091

North Carolina 37.2% 0.90 101.1% 1.67 4,861

Pennsylvania 48.5% 1.18 111.6% 1.85 6,638

USA - TOTAL 41.2% 1.00 60.4% 1.00 158,470

The above table discloses the rates of growth in both Q1 2015 and Q1 2016, as well as the

entire years of 2015 and 2014 in seven biotech clusters. In comparing 2015 to 2014, the

average rate of growth, as measured by online job listings, increased by 41.2%. Amongst

our sample, Massachusetts grew at the fifth-highest rate out of the seven states we

measured, albeit at a faster rate than the industry at the national level, resulting in a

growth quotient of 1.09 – i.e. listings in Massachusetts’ biopharma industry grew at a 9%

faster clip than the industry did as a whole in the country when comparing 2015 to 2014.

Of the states in our sample, New Jersey witnessed the largest increase in listings, growing

at 74% year-over-year, and besting the national industry average by 80%. This sample of

seven states accounted for about 47% of the national job listings in 2015.

Focusing on comparing Q1 2016 to Q1 2015, Massachusetts’ rate of increase over those

two periods of time was 56%, yet it was actually 7% slower than the rate at which the

industry grew at the national level over the same timeframe. As it is a smaller period of

time, these numbers are subject to larger swings.

30


Next, we break out the biopharma industry into distinct sub-sectors amongst our seven-

state sample to see which sectors within Massachusetts and the six other states grew – or,

declined – in job listings between 2014 and 2015. Below is an explainer on the sub-sectors

used in this analysis.

The following three graphs break out our biotech hub comparisons into three distinct

industry sub-sections – 3254, or Pharmaceutical Manufacturers; 5417, or Research and

Development in Biotechnology; and “Ancillary Industries,” comprised of the following NAICS

Codes (3345, 5413, 6113, 622, and 6215). For the sake of an apples-to-apples comparison,

we applied Burning Glass Labor Insight’s four “biotech” skills filters that sift through the

entirety of the online listings to identify what could be considered a biotech opening in

each sector.

The vertical axis describes the particular sector’s share of job listings within the state’s

biotech industry. The horizontal axis shows the year-over-year growth in job listings in

each state’s particular sub-sector. Finally, the diameter of the dot is in relation to the sheer

size of employment within that sub-sector (for the Ancillary Industries category, which

encompasses a much smaller share of 5 industries, the number of job postings was used as

a stand-in for circle size – apples-to-apples comparisons between states in this category

were unavailable at the time of publication).

33%

12%

33%

115%

34% 39%

29% 25%

69%

46%

64%

34%

57% 55% 58%

79%

49%

78% 81%

2%

54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Year-Over-Year Industry Sector Growth by State, 2014-2015

Ancillary Industries Biotech R&D Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

31


Among the seven states, only Maryland had a smaller monthly employee population

average within the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing sector than Massachusetts did in the first

three quarters of 2015, yet the sector accounted for nearly 45% of all industry job listings

in Massachusetts during that time. California had the most employees, at 47,864;

Massachusetts had 10,724. North Carolina had by far the slowest growth in the sample,

only a 2% increase in job postings, compared with a 37% increase in the entire industry

over the same timeframe.

California

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Se

cto

r S

ha

re o

f S

tate

's B

iote

ch L

isti

ng

s

Percentage Growth in Job Listings, 2014 to 2015

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Comparisons

California

Maryland

Massachusetts New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Se

cto

r S

ha

re o

f S

tate

's B

iote

ch L

isti

ng

s

Percentage Growth in Job Listings, 2014 to 2015

Biotech R&D Comparisons

32


Massachusetts had the largest Research and Development in Biotechnology sector by

employee count in 2015, besting California by 2,000 workers. While similarly-sized,

Massachusetts experienced much larger growth in listings than California did in the years

of 2014 and 2015. While much larger than the five other states, Massachusetts lagged

behind in growth rate (46%). While three times larger than Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

in terms of employment, R&D in Biotech in Massachusetts actually made up a smaller

fraction of total job listings.

Much smaller in terms of employment and job listings, the amalgamated Ancillary

Industries is made up of biotech-related jobs in five separate industries encompassing

higher education, healthcare, testing laboratories, and laboratory research instrumentation

manufacturing. With the exception of New Jersey, with a year-over-year growth rate of

nearly 120%, the six other states are bunched together in terms of growth. Although home

to many of the top hospitals and universities in terms of federal funding, Massachusetts

lags behind most of the states in terms of job listings as a share of the state’s whole

biopharma industry.

What to Look For In Future MassBioEd Reports

MassBioEd will continue to produce various reports as part of its regular Briefs series.

Having concentrated on entry level positions with its initial Briefs, MassBioEd will expand

its focus more deeply into higher experience level issues. We will continue to produce 3-

Month Job Trend Reports, intended as quick-check, snap-shots of job trends in the industry.

California

Maryland Massachusetts

New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Se

cto

r S

ha

re o

f S

tate

's B

iote

ch L

isti

ng

s

Percentage Growth In Job Openings, 2014 to 2015

Ancillary Industries Comparisons

33


In 2016, MassBioEd will also be working to develop an on-line career pathways guide, with

the intention of clarifying pathways’ to careers in the industry, using historic and real-time

data on skill requirements, degree requirements, job demand, job salaries, and job demand

forecasting for positions in the industry.

MassBioEd engages teachers, inspires students, and guides the life sciences workforce. We

invite the reader to learn more about our BioTeach program, which supports

Massachusetts teachers as they work to engage students through lab-centered, inquiry-

based learning. BioTeach provides training for 150 public high school teachers, impacting

thousands of public high schools students annually. BioTeach’s experiential learning

opportunities introduce over 600 public school science students annually to careers in the

life sciences. Through BioTeach, MassBioEd also provides grants for lab supplies and

equipment for in-need schools, as well as extensive mentoring for teachers. BioTeach is

largely dependent on funds raised from corporate philanthropy and individual donors.

Learn more at www.massbioed.org.

http://www.massbioed.org/

34


Appendix Data Sources:

• Burning Glass Labor Insight (2010 – 2014 Graduation Data, Job Listings Data) • MA Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development’s Employment and Wages by

Industry and Area (Industry Sector Employment Data) • Univ. of Massachusetts’ President’s Office, Neena Verma (2015 Graduation data via

IPEDS Data Center) • Annual Industry Survey, SurveyMonkey • BLS’ QCEW Data Files (Employment Data) • BLS’ OES Research Estimates by State and Industry (Staffing Composition of Industry

Sectors) • iShares by BlackRock (Biotech Stock Data) • Evaluate Pharma (BioPharma R&D Spending Data)

• PwC MoneyTree (Venture Capital Funding Data) Industry Projection Methodology

MassBioEd conducted its first forecast of industry growth in May 2016. With a base month

and year of May 2015 (latest available employment data with staffing patterns), we were

able to project out three years hence, both industry size and individual occupations.

The first step was to estimate the size of the industry in May 2018. Each individual sector

(3254, 54171, 54138, 3345, 622, 61131, and 6215) was broken out into the highest-digit

NAICS code with available OES industry staffing patterns for May 2015, in order to isolate

historical trends and contributing factors unique to each sector. A multiple weighted

regression was run for each sector, all with auto-regressive terms of the monthly,

seasonally-adjusted employment numbers. The weights emphasized the importance of

more recent data points in the model (.01 x (.99) ^# of months prior to September 2015).

For Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (NAICS 3254), additional independent variables such as

the Biotech Stock Market Index level of the previous 6 month period (sourced from

iShares), a centered moving 12-month average of Venture Capital funding in the

Massachusetts Biotech industry (sourced from PwC’s MoneyTree tool), and a 3-month

average of industry job listings were found to be statistically significant contributors, with

p-values of .01, 5.7x10-12, and .02, respectively (any variable with a p-value below .05 was

included). All independent variables were then auto-regressed out to May 2018 at the

lower 95th of their predicted value (two times the standard error below the predicted

value), ensuring a conservative estimate moving forward. The resulting Adjusted R-

Squared, a measure of the total amount of variance of the dependent variable explained by

the independent variables in the equation, was .99.

35


For Biotechnology R&D (NAICS 54171), additional independent variables such as the

Biotech Stock Market Index level of the previous 6 month period (sourced from iShares),

and the monthly average of BioPharma R&D spending in billions (sourced from Evaluate

Pharma) were to found to be statistically significant contributors, with p-values of 6.47x10-

5, and .01. Following the same methodology as described above, the resulting Adjusted R-

Squared value was also .99.

The other five sectors were forecasted using strictly a weighted autoregressive equation,

which is essentially a “business-as-usual” approach. The Adjusted R-Squared values all

approached .99. The resulting estimates of industry populations were completed by

applying seasonality to the trend. All industries were then summed to complete the total

industry growth projections.

In order to predict individual occupational projections, we first looked at historical staffing

patterns within each sector – i.e. the share of each sector that individual occupational

families had from May 2012 through May 2015. Occupational families are groups of like-

occupations sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Standard Occupational Code

system. Next, in order to predict industrial occupational composition in May 2018, we

weighted the average share of each occupational family within each sector of the previous

four years (50% of the 2015 average, 25% of 2014’s, 15% of 2013’s, and 10% of 2012’s) to

derive the estimate for the 2018 staffing patterns within each sector. Next, we applied the

percentage change of each occupational family’s sector share to each occupation within

each occupational family, which resulted in a 2018 share for each occupation in each of the

seven sectors of the industry, applied to the aforementioned May 2018 total sector

employment projections. They were then summed together and compared against the May

2015 totals to come up with projected growth or decline for all occupations over the course

of the three years.

36


Occupational Projections

Top 30 Occupations – May 2015 2015 2018 Net

Change Growth

Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists 9,411 10,030 619 6.6%

Biological Technicians 5,850 6,012 162 2.8%

Biochemists and Biophysicists 3,095 3,502 408 13.2%

General and Operations Managers 1,597 1,747 151 9.4%

Biomedical Engineers 1,542 1,667 125 8.1%

Clinical Research Coordinators, All Other 1,484 1,618 134 9.0%

Chemists 1,235 1,443 208 16.8%

Electronics Engineers, Except Computer 1,195 1,197 2 0.2%

Compliance Officers 1,055 1,125 70 6.6%

Microbiologists 1,014 1,158 144 14.2%

Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative Assistants

959 1,033 74 7.7%

Mechanical Engineers 936 977 41 4.4%

Phlebotomists 867 782 -85 -9.8%

Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive

827 888 62 7.5%

Customer Service Representatives 783 855 72 9.2%

Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders

770 801 31 4.0%

First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers

767 773 6 0.8%

Industrial Engineers 732 852 120 16.3%

Life, Physical, and Social Science Technicians, All Other 712 711 -1 -0.1%

Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians 685 809 124 18.1%

Financial Managers 670 738 68 10.1%

Software Developers, Systems Software 658 754 96 14.5%

Marketing Managers 625 681 56 8.9%

Biological Scientists, All Other 619 760 141 22.8%

Industrial Production Managers 616 732 116 18.9%

Chemical Technicians 615 702 86 14.1%

Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks 614 665 51 8.3%

Statisticians 597 683 86 14.4%

Life Scientists, All Other 590 580 -10 -1.7%

Sales Representatives, Wholesale and Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products

589 814 224 38.1%

37


38


39


Date post:	07-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoanghanh
View:	217 times
Download:	1 times

JOB TRENDS FORECAST - MassBioEd · PDF file2 MassBioEd Foundation 2016 Biotechnology Job...

Documents