A methodological approach to the marketing process in the biotechnology-based companies

Adoption of Video Laryngoscopy in Massachusetts Emergency Departments

“…Each category of adopters has an expected proportion: Innovators (2.5%), Early Adopters (13.5%), Early Majority (34%), Late Majority (34%), and Laggards (16%) (10). This typical technology adoption life cycle has been found to be applicable to other biotechnologies using 2-to 4-year intervals (11). Because our initial results found that 43% of Massachusetts EDs had adopted video laryngoscopy 9 years since its development (putting it in the Early Majority stage), we used the longer 4-year intervals, dividing the video laryngoscopy technology adoption life cycle into the periods 2000-2003 (Innovators), 2004-2007 (Early Adopters), and 2008 (Early Majority).…”

“…The typical technology adoption life cycle has been well described in the business literature and involves serial adoption by five categories of consumers: innovators, early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards (10). Although this typical technology adoption life cycle has been found to be applicable to other biotechnologies, it is unknown whether the adoption of video laryngoscopy has followed this expected pattern (11). Additionally, a prior study on other medical technologies determined that cost-effectiveness, rather than efficacy, is the most common barrier to adoption of new technologies in medicine (12).…”

Technology versus product innovations - are they like apples and oranges? A comparative study on commercialisation

“…There are some analytical frameworks in the literature that might have been employed as a potential basis for framing the findings. For instance, Costa et al (2004) states that the marketing process comprises three phases: 1 strategic marketing definition 2 marketing implementation 3 evolution of strategy and its implementation.…”