A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR
 |
“New and improved” may stir up some enthusiasm among consumers of laundry detergents, but the phrase doesn’t carry much clout with users of medical devices. They tend to tune out the hype (and the redesigned product). Yet, large med-tech companies continue to pour resources into incremental improvements of existing devices. Why? That is one of the questions raised by a recently completed survey on product development practices among medical device OEMs. The poll was conducted on behalf of the Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare. MATCH, as it is more commonly known, is a collaboration of five UK universities and several industrial partners. The survey sought to identify best practices for new product development in the med-tech sector and to isolate those factors that contribute to the commercial success of a product.
People taking the survey were asked a series of questions based on two products launched by their company in the past five years. They were asked to cite one project they considered to be successful along with one that fell short of expectations. Although the initial results are based on a fairly small cohort—37 companies and a total of 63 different products—some interesting facts emerged. Furthermore, the researchers hope that the publication of these preliminary findings will spur more people to take part in the survey. I will tell you how to get involved at the end of this column. But first, here is a summary of survey results to date.
It won’t come as a shock to learn that large companies (defined as those employing 250 or more people) are risk averse when it comes to product introductions. “Large companies prefer an evolutionary approach that uses minor [product] upgrades,” write the authors. Innovation is largely in the hands of small companies employing no more than 49 people. According to the survey, small companies are twice as likely as large companies to take a new technology to market.
A follow-up question asked participants to rate the success of each product compared with initial expectations. Products based on new technologies represented a small percentage of the sampling, but they achieved a remarkable degree of success in the eyes of their manufacturers. A little over two-thirds of those products exceeded expectations in the marketplace. By contrast, 64% of minor upgrades were deemed a disappointment. So, why do large companies often persist in adopting a “strategy of minor upgrades?” the authors wonder. This approach is all the more perplexing, they add, since these manufacturers “presumably have a full set of options available to them.”
The survey also quizzed device manufacturers on the development strategies and tools that played a significant role in product innovation. While dedicated and cross-functional teams were frequently cited, it’s interesting to note that in approximately 65% of the projects, end-users were significantly involved in the process. (That number rises to 80% when limited involvement is taken into account.) Also noteworthy is the role of suppliers, which played a substantial part in 40% of the product development projects (that figure doubles when limited involvement is included).
Out of necessity, med-tech OEMs are avid users of quality systems and process improvement methods. One of the survey questions attempted to cross-reference the types of programmes implemented with company size.
As one might expect, manufacturing-based strategies such as lean manufacturing, stage gate, six sigma, and total quality management were most popular among larger companies. For example, more than three-quarters of large companies surveyed use the stage-gate process, while a little over 5% of micro companies (fewer than 10 employees) use this tool. Quality function deployment and design for manufacture, which the authors of the report qualify as “more-innovative style strategies,” are fairly popular with micro and small companies. It should be noted, however, that almost 70% of large companies employ those methods, as well. I also found it interesting that six sigma, which has received so much coverage in the last few years, has seen very limited implementation in the medical device arena.
Report authors Julie Eatock, Terry Young, Dorian Dixon, and Alan Brown would like to encourage more members of industry to contribute to the study. You may do so online by going to www.match.ac.uk. Alternatively, a paper copy may be requested by e-mailing d.dixon@ulster.ac.uk. All participants will receive a complete survey report.
