by Keeley Wray

Do your providers have an idea that can revolutionize medicine? Well, it is important they investigate what is currently on the market or in the development pipeline. A thorough analysis of competing technologies is essential to successful market adoption, a step that should follow the ideation phase but precede the building of a prototype or pilot-ready version.

The reasoning behind my suggestion is, "You could remake the wheel, but would it be a valuable use of your time?"

[More:]

It's surprising how common it is for a physician inventor to stumble on a concept that has already been realized by someone else. Many times, a competing technology is better, or further along, rendering the inventor's approach obsolete. Or, the inventor is proposing additional features that only provide incremental benefit. In that case, it may make sense to form a collaboration with the company or institution practicing the competing approach and request additional features, rather than building a new prototype from scratch.

I can see why people in Thomas Edison's time would potentially make the mistake of inventing something in parallel with someone else. When great distances between communities were traversed only by way of of horse and carriages and newspapers were the snails' pace means of spreading the word, it is not surprising that inventors would be unaware of competing efforts.

But in the modern healthcare environment, there is really no reason not to conduct a thorough investigation of the competitive landscape. There is so much available for free by typing a few words into Google. More specific search engines like PubMed and Google Patents can save substantial time and effort if properly culled before designing the prototype.

When conducting a competitive analysis, it is paramount to use multiple sets of keywords. It is easy to make the mistake of using words that describe the means, technique or approach used to obtain an end, rather than using keywords related to the end, uncovering other approaches that use a different mechanism. For example, someone may search for a proprietary microfludics approach to separate out certain cells from one another but may totally miss a perfectly well-suited flow cytometery assay that meets the existing need. Using broad keywords describing both the secret sauce and the end goal (i.e., diagnosing HIV) will provide a much more comprehensive list of technologies that could compete with you for market share.

Lastly, avoid formulating assumptions that are not checked. For example, you may assume that an existing medical approach is too expensive but if you actually question an end-user, you would find that cost is not a concern. Or you might assume the user would be willing to pay big bucks for a new technology but in reality, the 5 percent to 10 percent advantage in specificity offered may not be compelling enough to justify a higher price tag.

So my advice to physician inventors is this: Let your prototype be guided by what exists now. You want to make a splash in the market, not a ripple. The competitive analysis (redo it twice a year, set up Google alerts triggered by keywords, poll your peers) is vital to marketplace success.

Thanks to Dr. Phyl Speser from Foresight Science & Technology for inspiring some of the ideas in this post.

Keeley Wray is technology marketing specialist at Children's Hospital Boston's Technology and Innovation Development Office. You can follow her on twitter @market_spy.