The Role of the Interaction between the User and the Manufacturer in Medical Equipment Innovation

Abstract

Abstract It has been empirically observed that ‘under‐standing user need’ and ‘good internal and external communications’ are factors which discriminate strongly between commercially successful industrial product and process innovations and those that fail. The research reported in this paper examines how the innovating firm achieves desirable levels of these factors through multiple and continuous interaction with the user throughout the innovation process. In the sample of thirty‐four medical equipment innovations from eleven companies, twenty six (76 per cent) were developed through multiple and continuous interaction, resulting in twenty two (65 per cent) of these being successful. There appear to be two major reasons for this high level of interaction: (1) the requirement that any equipment that is to be potentially introduced into clinical use first needs clinical assessment and trial; and (2) the ‘state of the art’ clinical and diagnostic knowledge resides in the user. A special relationship is, therefore, needed between the clinical advisory and trial team on the one hand and the manufacturer on the other. The introduction to this paper reviews the findings of other work in the examination of the role of the user in the innovation process. Details of the sample, the methods of sample selection and classification of the data follow in section 2. The results of the research are summarised in section 3. These detail the nature of the medical equipment innovation process, identifying in particular the high level of interaction between the user, intermediaries and the manufacturer, resulting in good communications and understanding of user need. Section 4 attempts to determine the significance of these results for the effective management of innovation and suggest areas for further research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 224 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.