Innovation’s Source?

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—orthopedic companies, in particular—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. Fixits. 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 withdifferent 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 forCreating 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 internaland external paths to market, as the firms look to advance theirtechnology,” 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—”closedinnovation.” Closed innovation says that successful innovationrequires 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 forinnovation, 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 in the pages ofOrthopedic Design & Technology. From product design to sterilization, third-party firms have a wealth of wisdom to share with medicaldevice OEMs—and even with each other. In this issue, in particular, we examine best practices (page 56) among medical device manufacturers and their supplier and contract manufacturing partners. In their quest to create safe, effective—and, yes, innovative—technology, firms are working on benchmarked processes that ensure their partners in innovation are on the same page and operating at the same verifiable, high level of quality.

“The key drivers we are seeing are risk management, regulatory compliance and competitiveness,” said Gerard Pearce, executive vice president of SQA Services, a quality management and third-party auditing firm, quoted in this issue’s best practices feature. “The medical device manufacturing world is extremely competitive, and time to market is essential for business. Forward-thinking companies are eager to adopt as many best practices as possible to pull ahead of the competition. They are especially keen on advanced ideas and practices that come from leading-edge suppliers in other industries, such as automotive, that haven’t reached the medical device market yet.”

It’s clear that device firms are drawing on multiple sources for their inspiration, talent and ideas. Even companies with a deepstable of creative talent often need external expertise to get the job done. The key is finding the right fit, the best mix of minds and skills (events such as this year’s ODT Forum Supplier Expo are a good place to start looking; see page 70).

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

Christopher Delporte

Editorial Director