The Source of Innovation?

Where does innovation come from? Dare I be so trite as to say that necessity is the mother of invention? Nah. That’s too simple. It’s part of the equation, but just one of many variables. I write about innovation a lot on this page. The reason is that medical device makers are extremely creative, and exploring those traits within the industry is part of the fun of being a journalist covering it.

This is a sector of tinkerers and problem solvers—albeit a highly educated bunch of Mr. and Mrs. Fix-Its. But no matter how intelligent or creative the mind behind the idea, it takes much more than that, as we’re doubtless all aware, to bring innovation to the patient. On the manufacturing side, for example, an idea by itself is not enough and isn’t innovation. Multiple factors must be considered—design, materials, prototyping, manufacturability and testing, just to name a few. Not many people (and if you’re reading, please identify yourself) can boast proficiency in all of these disciplines. You need a network of people with different backgrounds and talents to collaborate and provide expertise and creative feedback.

You might call that “open innovation.” Open innovation is a term first popularized in a 2003 book of the same title (“Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology”) by Henry Chesbrough, Ph.D., a professor in the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley and former Harvard University professor. By his definition, the concept involves combining external as well as internal ideas—and internal and external strategies—in advancing competitively.

“Open innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology,” Chesbrough writes.  

He explains that the boundaries between a firm and its environment have become more permeable—innovations easily can transfer inward and outward. The central idea behind open innovation is that in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm’s business should be taken outside the company (e.g., through licensing, joint ventures or spin-offs).

This concept of opening the gates to new ideas is nothing new. Current recent economic reality, along with the constricted American dollar, are drawing attention to more cost-effective and time-saving pools of information and ideas. This is a concept that the medical device industry increasingly has come to embrace.

The flip side of open innovation is—you guessed it—”closed innovation.” Closed innovation says that successful innovation requires control. A company should control (the generating of) its own ideas, as well as production, marketing, distribution, servicing, financing and support. Sounds pretty old-fashioned, doesn’t it? How many companies really have the bandwidth to accomplish all of those tasks? According to Chesbrough, the traditional model for innovation, which has been internally focused and closed off from outside ideas and technologies, is obsolete.

That gets to the heart of many of the manufacturing and product development relationships that we cover with MedicalDeviceNow From product design all the way to sterilization, third-party firms have a wealth of wisdom to share with medical device OEMs—and even with each other.

Take for example new mammography technology from Hologic. To turn its concept into clinical reality, the company turned to New Hampshire-based Farm Design to lend its product development expertise, which Hologic execs say made all the difference in their new system’s success. Despite all of Hologic’s internal knowledge spanning multiple iterations of various diagnostic, surgical and medicalimaging devices, the company still needed the talent and services an outside firm had to offer. It may have been able to complete the project on its own, but why? And would the outcome have been the same?

It’s clear that device firms are drawing on multiple sources for their inspiration, ideas, processes and technology. Even companies with a deep stable of creative talent often need external
expertise to get the job done.

Philosophically, the source of innovation still may be a little bit elusive. But, in practice, looking for partners to share the journey is a good beginning.