Outcomes from a Postgraduate Biomedical Technology Innovation Training Program: The First 12 Years of Stanford Biodesign
- 1k Downloads
The Stanford Biodesign Program began in 2001 with a mission of helping to train leaders in biomedical technology innovation. A key feature of the program is a full-time postgraduate fellowship where multidisciplinary teams undergo a process of sourcing clinical needs, inventing solutions and planning for implementation of a business strategy. The program places a priority on needs identification, a formal process of selecting, researching and characterizing needs before beginning the process of inventing. Fellows and students from the program have gone on to careers that emphasize technology innovation across industry and academia. Biodesign trainees have started 26 companies within the program that have raised over $200 million and led to the creation of over 500 new jobs. More importantly, although most of these technologies are still at a very early stage, several projects have received regulatory approval and so far more than 150,000 patients have been treated by technologies invented by our trainees. This paper reviews the initial outcomes of the program and discusses lessons learned and future directions in terms of training priorities.
KeywordsMedtech Medical device Invention Needs-based Fellowship Multidisciplinary
We would like to recognize the core staff of Biodesign for the excellence and diligence of their work in service of the program: Ari Chaney, Roula El-Asmar, Mary Gorman, Justina Kayastha, Linda Lucian, Andrea Mattison and Athena Reyes.
- 2.Byers, T., R. Dorf, and A. Nelson. Technology Ventures: From Idea to Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010, 704 pp.Google Scholar
- 3.Estrin, J. Closing the Innovation Gap. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2008, 272 pp.Google Scholar
- 6.Immelt, J. R., V. Govindarajan, and C. Trimble. How GE is disrupting itself. Harv. Bus. Rev. 87:56–65, 2009.Google Scholar
- 7.Kelley, T., and J. Littman. The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm. New York: Random House, 2001, 320 pp.Google Scholar
- 8.Pugh, S. Concept selection—a method that works. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. 81:497–506, 1981.Google Scholar
- 9.Radjou, N., J.Prahbhu, and S. Ahuja. Jugaad Innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2012, 275 pp.Google Scholar
- 10.Sattar, A., D. Drigalla, S. Higgins, and D. Schreiber. Prevalence of arrhythmias in ED patients discharged using a novel ambulatory cardiac monitor. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 59:E642–E642, 2012.Google Scholar
- 12.Wasden, C. Medical technology innovation scorecard: the race for global leadership. PricewaterhouseCoopers Report, 2011, 49 pp.Google Scholar
- 13.Yock, P. G., J. Makower, S. A. Zenios, T. J. Brinton, U. Kumar, T. Krummel, and L. Denend (eds.). Biodesign: Innovating New Medical Technologies. London: Cambridge Press, 2009, 742 pp.Google Scholar