How Should Organizations Promote Equitable Distribution of Benefits from Technological Innovation in Health Care?

Technological innovations typically benefit those who have good access to and an understanding of the underlying technologies. As such, technology-centered health care innovations are likely to preferentially benefit users of privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Which policies and strategies should health care organizations adopt to promote equitable distribution of the benefits from technological innovations? In this essay, we draw on two important concepts-co-creation (the joint creation of value by multiple parties such as a company and its customers) and digitalization (the application of new digital technologies and the ensuing changes in sociotechnical structures and relationships)-and propose a set of policies and strategies that health care organizations could adopt to ensure that benefits from technological innovations are more equitably distributed among all target populations, including resource-poor communities and individuals.

Models of consumer value cocreation in health care.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, consumer participation in health care has gained critical importance as health care organizations (HCOs) seek varied avenues to enhance the quality and the value of their offerings. Many large HCOs have established online health communities where health care consumers (patients) can interact with one another to share knowledge and offer emotional support in disease management and care. Importantly, the focus of consumer participation in health care has moved beyond such personal health care management as the potential for consumers to participate in innovation and value creation in varied areas of the health care industry becomes increasingly evident. Realizing such potential, however, will require HCOs to develop a better understanding of the varied types of consumer value cocreation that are enabled by new information and communication technologies such as online health communities and Web 2.0 (social media) technologies. PURPOSES: This article seeks to contribute toward such an understanding by offering a concise and coherent theoretical framework to analyze consumer value cocreation in health care. We identify four alternate models of consumer value cocreation-the partnership model, the open-source model, the support-group model, and the diffusion model-and discuss their implications for HCOs. METHOD: We develop our theoretical framework by drawing on theories and concepts in knowledge creation, innovation management, and online communities. A set of propositions are developed by combining theoretical insights from these areas with real-world examples of consumer value cocreation in health care. FINDINGS: The theoretical framework offered here informs on the potential impact of the different models of consumer value cocreation on important organizational variables such as innovation cost and time, service quality, and consumer perceptions of HCO. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: An understanding of the four models of consumer value cocreation can help HCOs adopt appropriate strategies and practices to embrace consumers as partners in the development and delivery of innovative health care products and services.

A buyer's guide to the innovation bazaar.

Companies seeking new ideas or product concepts from outside sources may find the "innovation bazaar," with its wide array of choices and methods of acquiring them, a confusing, chaotic place. Nambisan and Sawhney have crafted a conceptual guide for managers who understand the importance of going outside their firms for innovation but are uncertain about how to do it. The authors' "external sourcing continuum" shows at a glance how shopping for, say, raw ideas compares with shopping for market-ready products in terms of cost, risk, multiplicity of options, and speed of commercialization. Raw ideas, whether acquired directly from the inventor or through a patent broker, licensing agent, or some other intermediary, tend to be low cost but high risk and take a long time to bring to market. Market-ready products, often acquired as stand-alone businesses through a venture capitalist or business incubator, are more expensive and narrow one's choices, but they can be launched quickly and with less risk. Between these two approaches lies a third, facilitated by the "innovation capitalist." This new kind of intermediary provides client companies with access to a broad range of innovative product or technology ideas that are nearly market ready, thereby mitigating early-stage risks and lowering the time to market without significantly increasing acquisition costs. The authors compare the advantages and disadvantages of using intermediaries associated with the three approaches and provide a checklist of factors to consider when placing your company on the external sourcing continuum. If you've been oriented toward one end of the continuum or the other, you can increase your options and your flexibility by expanding into the middle.