Innovative Product Development and Technology Adoption for Medical Applications - Biomaterials Science: An Integrated Clinical and Engineering Approach - page 277

comment, “Why don't we take this other technology that we found and put
those two together?” About ten years ago industry went through a time
when many companies put groups of expertise together in close proximity
in their development areas. The leading-edge display group was in one area,
the transmitter and receiver group was in another area, and the software
developers were all together. This was to enable the easy transfer of informa-
tion and ideas between these groups and to foster “over-the-lunch-table” dis-
cussions. These centers of technical excellence have been modified in many
instances by “cross-functional teams.” The Integrated Product Development
Team (IPT) has supplanted the previous organizational model. In my opin-
ion there needs to be both of these types of collaboration. When the develop
calls for robotics, we call in a robotics expert. When the software needs mod-
ification, we bring in the software developer. But functionally the hardest
part to put together for many teams is the operational concept of applying
the product to the real world application. In the medical development we
need that doctor or nurse who has the experience to know what factors are
important and how to design the product to bring the most value to the user.
Edison called it “master-mind collaboration” (Gelb 2007).
Integration into the Clinical Process (Concepts of Operations)
The integration of new technology into the medical field parallels that of
the introduction and adoption of new developments in other technology-
based applications. In military terminology this is termed the development
of the concept of operations. This simply means “How will the user insert
this technology into the current process, daily routine or method of servic-
ing the customer?”
From the theoretical base we find ten factors that affect the adoption of
new technology innovation. These factors are drawn from a combined model
taking into account the diffusion of innovation theory of Everett Rogers, the
theory of reasoned action by Ajzen and Fishbein, and the technology accep-
tance model of Davis.
1. Relative advantage
2. Compatibility
3. Image
4. Ease of use
5. Results demonstrability
6. Trialability
7. Perceived voluntariness