What Are the Success Factors for a Partnership with Global Medical Device Companies? Evidence from Korea

Abstract

The medical device industry is uniquely characterized by both resourceful global companies and innovative catching-up companies. The studies by Chatterji have analyzed how large and established medical device companies could better utilize the ideas from innovative groups such as physicians. While the existing literature on the topic of open innovation is enriched, there are few studies on the partnership between larger global medical device companies and smaller catching-up medical device companies. This study focuses on a structured partnership with global medical device companies. To understand how such a deal could be better arranged, this study adopted the Analytic Hierarchy Process (hereafter, AHP) analysis to derive the success factors of such partnership with a focus on the case of the Korean medical device industry. This survey interviewed 30 experienced professionals who currently work for global medical device companies. The study results found that global medical device companies prefer a licensing deal along with broader territories. In terms of the preferred requirements for a partnership deal, the study revealed that there is strong emphasis on factors such as Quality and Intellectual Property (hereafter, IP) protection. This study has practical managerial implications for catching-up medical device companies which drive an open innovation practice with a view to accelerating their growth trajectory in the global market.

Healthcare Innovation in Greece: The Views of Private Health Entrepreneurs on Implementing Innovative Plans

“…We attempt to bridge that gap, analysing health entrepreneurs' attitude relative to innovative plans, identifying potential obstacles in terms of government policies and the legal framework that imposes strict operating protocols that prevent the implementation of innovative ideas. Finally, some suggestions are made, on the need for change in the healthcare industry and the adoption of open innovation processes in line with recent research findings [10][11][12]. The results of the research will provide support for innovation decision-making centres.…”

“…Liu et al [43] underline, that in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been innovative incentives for readjustments in medical companies, many of which happened in an open collaborative way. The leading players in the health care industry-pharmaceuticals and medical device companies-seem, over the last decade, to be adopting an open innovation model that aims to reduce uncertainty and create sustainable growth [12]. Innovation in healthcare is part of the field of social innovation, which encourages new approaches to tackle issues of poverty, education, health and other human development problems by making system-level changes [35].…”

A novel maturity index for assessing medical device startups

“…Early-stage companies in the CTIP portfolio, with its particular focus on pediatrics, have better access to consulting and educational resources than most, so their maturities in certain domains may exceed the maturity of early-stage startups more generally. In particular, many MedTech startups struggle with regulatory and clinical readiness [43,44], underlining the importance of specialized accelerators like the Pediatric Device Consortia program [16]. Further, none of the companies surveyed were developing Class III devices that would enter the market through the premarket approval route.…”

Is There a Difference in Innovation Performance Depending on the Investment in Each Stage of Development Process? Evidence From Medical Device Industry

“…In South Korea, the quality of medical services, hospital information systems, and medical insurance systems are evaluated to be at a high level, but the level of the medical device industry remains low [7]. The growth rate of the medical device market and the market size is relatively high, but the actual size of the Korean medical device market accounts for less than 2% of the global market [14], [15]. On top of that, most companies in the Korean medical device industry are SMEs, and they lack the resources and employees to invest in R&D activities [5], [6], [7].…”