Technology confidence in early stage development of medical devices

Innovation is a critical factor in ensuring commercial success within the area of medical technology. Biotechnology and Healthcare developments require huge financial and resource investment, in-depth research and clinical trials. Consequently, these developments involve a complex multidisciplinary structure, which is inherently full of risks and uncertainty. In this context, early technology assessment and 'proof of concept' is often sporadic and unstructured. Existing methodologies for managing the feasibility stage of medical device development are predominantly suited to the later phases of development and favour detail in optimisation, validation and regulatory approval. During these early phases, feasibility studies are normally conducted to establish whether technology is potentially viable. However, it is not clear how this technology viability is currently measured. This paper aims to redress this gap through the development of a technology confidence scale, as appropriate explicitly to the feasibility phase of medical device design. These guidelines were developed from analysis of three recent innovation studies within the medical device industry.

Architectural research and its enemies

Like the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) that preceded it, the UK government's proposed Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a means of allocating funding in higher education to support research. As with any method for the competitive allocation of funds it creates winners and losers and inevitably generates a lot of emotion among those rewarded or penalised. More specifically, the 'winners' tend to approve of the method of allocation and the 'losers' denigrate it as biased against their activities and generally unfair. An extraordinary press campaign has been consistently waged against research assessment and its methods by those involved in architectural education, which I will track over a decade and a half. What follows will question whether this campaign demonstrates the sophistication and superior judgment of those who have gone into print, or conversely whether its mixture of misinformation and disinformation reveals not just disenchantment and prejudice, but a naivety and a depth of ignorance about the fundamentals of research that is deeply damaging to the credibility of architecture as a research-based discipline. With the recent consultation process towards a new cycle of research assessment, the REF, getting under way, I aim to draw attention to the risk of repeating past mistakes. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.

Shortening the decision distance: Selecting decision aids for improved technology investment performance

Deciding which technology to invest in is a recurring issue for technology managers, and the ability to successfully identify the right technology can be a make or break decision for a company. The effects of globalisation have made this issue even more imperative. Not only do companies have to be competitive by global standards but increasingly they have to source technological capabilities from overseas as well. Technology managers already have a variety of decision aids to draw upon, including valuation tools, for example DCF and real options; decision trees; and technology roadmapping. However little theory exists on when, where, why or even how to best apply particular decision aids. Rather than developing further techniques, this paper reviews the relevance and limitations of existing techniques. This is drawn from an on going research project which seeks to support technology managers in selecting and applying existing decision aids and potentially in the design of future decision aids. It is intended that through improving the selection of decision aids, decision performance can be increased, leading to more effective allocation of resources and hence competitive advantage. (c) 2006 PICMET.