The emergence of health technology organizations among institutional healthcare and economic actors
- 2 Downloads
Few studies have considered the creation of health technology organizations where the entrepreneurs seize opportunities, create their entrepreneurial organization and provide it with legitimacy, and examined the triggers, constraints and pressures involved in this process. To study the emergence of such firms, we performed semistructured interviews with 20 entrepreneurs and strategic partners involved in the development and commercialization of health technologies. For each stage of the firm emergence process, we identified triggers and enablers, as well as barriers and constraints encountered by entrepreneurs, and pressures originating from institutional actors. We found that each stage of startup emergence had triggers where the entrepreneur faced a conflicting situation in the form of boundary misalignment, competing technologies, poor performances, and resource asymmetry. Each topic is examined in the light of neo-institutional theory and finally replaced within a larger process in which the entrepreneur addresses market and healthcare system needs and interacts with other actors. In each stage, we identified a predominant institutional process taking place, whether it was decoupling, organizational field influence or legitimation seeking. The present study aimed at understanding the process by which an opportunity is seized, an organization is created and an institution as big as a healthcare system is approached. The results may help entrepreneurs and decisionmakers understand the strategies engaged following pressures from the healthcare organization. Likewise, it could increase investors’ awareness of the emergence process of health tech businesses and stimulate mutual understanding between entrepreneurs, and economic and healthcare actors.
KeywordsInnovation in health Institutional entrepreneurship Opportunities Neo-institutional theory Health technologies Competitive actions Social construction
I thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments, as these comments led to an improvement of the manuscript.
I have full contributions to this manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
The author declares that there are no competing interests.
- Barber, D. H., & Crelinsten, J. (2009). Understanding the early-stage and start-up R&D performing firms. (pp. 43): The Impact Group.Google Scholar
- Barnett, J., Vasileiou, K., Djemil, F., Brooks, L., & Young, T. (2011). Understanding innovators' experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 342. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beaulieu, M., & Lehoux, P. (2018). Emerging health technology firms’strategies and their impact on economicand healthcare system actors: a qualitative study. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 77(11), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-018-0092-5.
- Callon, M. (1988). La science et ses réseaux. Paris, France: Éditions. La Découverte.Google Scholar
- Cooper, D. J., Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2006). Examining "institutionalization": A critical theoretic perspective. In O. Greenwood, Sahlin, Suddaby, eds (Ed.), The Sage handbook of organisational institutionalism (pp. 673–701). Londres, Royaume-Uni: Sage.Google Scholar
- Daniel, G., Colvin, H., Khaterzai, S., McClellan, M., & Aurora, P. (2015). Strengthening patient care: Building an effective national medical device surveillance system. (pp. 75). Washington, DC: Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at Brookings.Google Scholar
- Dea, N., Fisher, C. G., Batke, J., Strelzow, J., Mendelsohn, D., Paquette, S. J., et al. (2016). Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: A patient-level data cost-effectiveness analysis. [article]. Spine Journal, 16(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Demko, P. (2014). How healthcare's Washington lobbying machine gets the job done. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20141004/MAGAZINE/310049987. Accessed December 22 2016.
- Dimaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Pensacola, FL: Ballinger Pub Co.Google Scholar
- Drummond, M., Griffin, A., & Tarricone, R. (2009). Economic evaluation for devices and drugs-same or different? Value in Health, 12(4), 402–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_1.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giorno, G. W., & Meunier, P. B. (2015). New lobbyists’ code will restrict dealings with Canada’s federal government and agencies. http://www.fasken.com/new-lobbyists-code-will-restrict-dealings-with-canadas-federal-government-and-agencies/#_ftn1. Accessed December 22 2016.
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
- Hatch, M. J., & AL, C. (2006). Organization theory. Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Herzlinger, R. E. (2006). Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 58–66 156.Google Scholar
- Keppler, S. B., Olaru, M., & Marin, G. (2015). Fostering entrepreneurial investment decision in medical technology ventures in a changing environment. [article]. Amfiteatru Economic, 17(38), 390–407.Google Scholar
- Leca, B., Battilana, J., & Boxenbaum, E. (2008). Agency and institutions: A review of institutional entrepreneurship. In Harvard Business School Working Paper: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
- Lehoux, P., Williams-Jones, B., Miller, F., Urbach, D., & Tailliez, S. (2008). What leads to better health care innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda. Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 13(4), 251–254. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDA treatment advocacy in Canada. [article]. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.Google Scholar
- Martin, J., Polisena, J., Dendukuri, N., Rhainds, M., & Sampietro-Colom, L. (2016). Local health technology assessment in Canada: Current state and next steps. [article]. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 32(3), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462316000210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Metrick, A., & Yasuda, A. (2010). Venture capital and the finance of innovation (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Nanda, R., & Rhodes-Kropf, M. (2012). Investment cycles and startup innovation. (pp. 56): Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
- Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada (2015). Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00014.html. Accessed December 22 2016.
- Organisation mondiale de la Santé. (2010). Landscape analysis of barriers to developing or adapting technologies for global health purposes. In World Health Organization (Ed.), Global initiative on health technologies. Geneva: Organisation mondiale de la Santé.Google Scholar
- Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2008). Networks and Institutions In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 822). Londres, Royaume-Uni: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 22, 2000: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (Vol. 22, pp. 237–281, research in organizational behavior). San Diego, CA: Jai-Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Sanders, C., Rogers, A., Bowen, R., Bower, P., Hirani, S., Cartwright, M., et al. (2012). Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the whole system demonstrator trial: A qualitative study. [article]. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Snowdon, A., & Cohen, J. (2011). Strengthening health systems through innovation: Lessons learned. Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation.Google Scholar
- Snowdon, A., Zur, R., & Shell, J. (2011). Transforming Canada into a global Centre for medical device innovation and adoption. Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation.Google Scholar
- Taylor, R. S., & Iglesias, C. P. (2009). Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: Are they that different? Value in Health, 12(4), 402–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_2.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionnalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Trigub-Clover, A., & Lamarche, P. A. (2009). La coexistence des secteurs privé et public et la performance des systèmes de soins de Santé In L. P. d. l. U. d. Montréal (Ed.), Le privé dans la santé: un débat sans fin? (pp. 206–223). Montréal, QC: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
- Vendeville, G. (2015). Five things to know about Bill 10. http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/bill-10-in-5-questions. Accessed December 22 2016.
- World Health Organization (2010). Innovative technologies that address global health concerns: Outcome of the call global initiative on health technologies. In World Health Organization (Ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254.Google Scholar