Search results
1 – 2 of 2Salina V. Thijssen, Maria J.G. Jacobs, Rachelle R. Swart, Luca Heising, Carol X.J. Ou and Cheryl Roumen
This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of radical innovations in secondary healthcare.
Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of radical innovations in secondary healthcare.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with a PRISMA flowchart. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for original publications in English between the 1st of January 2010 and 6th of November 2020. The level of radicalness was determined based on five characteristics of radical innovations. The level of evidence was classified according to the level of evidence scale of the University of Oxford. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a framework to classify the barriers and facilitators.
Findings
Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine publications were included, concerning six technological, two organizational and one treatment innovation. The main barriers for radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare were lack of human, material and financial resources, and lack of integration and organizational readiness. The main facilitators included a supportive culture, sufficient training, education and knowledge, and recognition of the expected added value.
Originality/value
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review examining the barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare. To ease radical innovation implementation, alternative performance systems may be helpful, including the following prerequisites: (1) Money, (2) Added value, (3) Timely knowledge and integration, (4) Culture, and (5) Human resources (MATCH). This study highlights the need for more high-level evidence studies in this area.
Details
Keywords
Noor Hidayah Shahidan, Ahmad Shaharudin Abdul Latiff and Sazali Abdul Wahab
The purpse of this study is to examine sustainable technology development (STD) during the “Valley of Death” phase encountered by university startups undertaking intellectual…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpse of this study is to examine sustainable technology development (STD) during the “Valley of Death” phase encountered by university startups undertaking intellectual property rights (IPR) commercialisation.
Design/methodology/approach
A comprehensive literature review was conducted after searching for relevant documents across multiple databases. Semi-structured interviews with university startup founders were also conducted as part of a qualitative case study.
Findings
This study resulted in two significant findings. First, the Valley of Death has been redefined in the specific context of IPR commercialisation by university startups. Second, the sustainable technology development framework (STDF) has been conceptualised to enhance the success rate of IPR commercialisation by university startups. The authors also identified three essential components of STD in the context of university startups: market development, technical efficiency and business sustainability.
Research limitations/implications
This exploratory research involved a thorough literature analysis. Given that only one qualitative case study was conducted, data saturation was not achieved. Further empirical research is needed to validate the conceptualised STDF.
Practical implications
The validated STDF will be a useful tool for enhancing the success of IPR commercialisation by university startups.
Originality/value
While others have focused on innovating business models, this study focused on an underexplored area: the sustainability of technology development during the commercialisation of IPR by university startups during the Valley of Death phase.
Details