Enterprise and Innovation Himore Medical Equipment

Question: The Task Scenarios: Scenario 1: Himore Medical Equipment Himore medical equipment was founded in 2011 by a young Cameroonian engineer, Mr Marc Arthur Zang. Mr Zang started developing the software that would enable medical staff (in remote rural/remote locations) to monitor patient's cardiac health whilst studying for his engineering degree at the National Advanced School of Engineering of Yaound. He identified the need to solve the problem of inadequate support for the diagnosis of heart related diseases in people living within remote/rural locations. Most of the country's heart surgeons tend to be concentrated in Cameroons major cities; Yaound and Douala. The Cardiopad makes it possible for cardiac related exams, the most common being the electrocardiogram (ECG), to be carried out on patients in remote parts of the world. The complete Cardiopad kit consists of: the medical tablet, the software, four wireless electrodes; sensors and a battery (with a battery life of six hours). The e lectrodes are fixed near the patient's heart; electrical impulses are collected using the software programme developed by Mr Zang. The cardiac data is transmitted over a mobile phone network to a cardiologist who downloads the information onto another Cardiopad and provides the diagnosis which is transmitted back to the health worker in the remote location. To date Mr Zang has received 30000 euros worth of funding from the Cameroonian government, which he used to create his prototype and manufacture some Cardiopads in China. As part of his 2014 Rolex Young Laureate award, Mr Zang has received 50 000 Swiss Francs worth of funding. Mr Zang has also been granted a patent by the Organisation Africaine de la PropritIntellectuelle (OAPI). He has already started working with other engineers in Cameroon on medical devices which address the health care needs of rural/remote communities. Your firm consultancy firm has been given the task of: Identifying new creative sources of funding. The f irm has already had difficulties raising money through traditional avenues such as bank loans. In addition Himore Medical Equipment is aiming at setting up its production facilities in Cameroon. Identifying new international emerging markets particularly within the South American content. Identifying medical devices or untapped areas for meeting the medical needs of rural/remote communities. In addition your report for Himore Medical Equipment will also need to address each of the areas outlined below under Particular instructions to students. Scenario 2: Three Over Seven Three Over Seven is a start-up founded in 2014 by a team of four entrepreneurs; Tim Brown, Earl Stewart, Nicholas Crouch and Jonathan Spanos. The firm is headquartered in New Zealand and the UK. Tim Brown, an ex-professional football player recognised the opportunity for sports shoes made from natural, biodegradable fibres which would minimise the sweating and odour associated with traditional sports shoes. Three Over Seven has developed the technology that will enable the firm to produce the world's first custom made woollen sports shoes. By using a patent pending process, the firm has been able to convert wool into a proprietary material, Fitwool, which can be used to manufacture footwear. The team is aiming at using 3D printing technology coupled with a mobile phone App (which customers will use to provide their sizing details) to provide their customised footwear range. They intend to set up their first digital shoe factory in London. In recognition of the uniqueness, innovativeness and international appeal of their idea the team has been awarded a 12 month placement on the UKTI Sirius programme. To date the firm has raised US30000 (approximately 17000) through their crowd funding campaign on Kick-starter. The team is excited. They are keen to explore additional avenues for funding. In addition the firm is interested in gaining an understanding of the international opportunities which a re available for their firm. Tim Brown has been referred to your consultancy firm by his advisors at the UKTI Sirius accelerator hub. He has asked you to provide a report which provides a clear outline of the international and funding opportunities available to the firm. Your report will need to follow the guidance outlined under the Particular instructions to students section. Scenario 3: Navitas Founded in 2011, Navitas identified an opportunity to address the energy needs of some of the poorest communities in the world. Headquartered in Bangalore, India, Navitas' top management team consists of two co-founders. The CEO and co-founder Amla Banajee has spent the last 10 years working in senior management positions for a range of NGO organisations in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Her prior experience has been focused on developing micropayment systems designed to minimise poverty within marginalised communities in developing economies. The second Co-founder and chief technica l officer Abhay Gupta has experience working in top management positions within the telecommunications sector. In addition Navitas employs a team of three engineers. Navitas top management team has developed a unique flexible energy purchasing model; the Coulomb Purchase System. The Coulomb Purchase System allows customers to purchase a solar home system at a minimal initial upfront cost. Ownership of the system is obtained through the customer making incremental payments over time, using their mobile phone in the same way in which one would send an SMS. Navitas has developed the core technology, a combination of hardware which sits on the phone and cloud based software, which enables the mobile phone to be used as a pre-payment electrical device. Navitas has secured seed funding from Indian headquartered venture capitalist Kanchana investments. The firm is now searching for: additional funding; new emerging market customer bases; and development partners outside the Asian subcontin ent. Through their personal network they have been made aware of your consulting firm's expertise in advising companies interested in developing solutions for the bottom of the pyramid customer bases in different parts of the world. Navitas has approached your firm requesting your firm to: Identify and recommend new credible international partners to collaborate with in developing and marketing their Coulomb Purchase System. Identify and recommend new potential customer bases in emerging and developing markets outside the Asian subcontinent. Propose appropriate entry mode strategies for entering the selected international markets. Answer: Innovation Enterprise is an independent business-to-business multi-channel media brand focused on the information needs of Senior Big Data, Strategy, Advanced Analytics, Innovation, Digital, Finance, Operations, Publishing Decision Support executives. In addition to live conferences summits our products include digital on-demand video content, live on-demand webcasts plus online communities. We also provide marketing services as well as on-site custom production and custom research to Fortune 500 clients. Whether it's delivered online, or in person, everything Innovation Enterprise produces reflects the company's unshakeable belief in the power of information to spur innovation. Article discusses the innovativeness of enterprises in the European Union(EU). It provides information on the state of innovation and focuses on some features and key aspects of the development of innovations implemented by enterprises. Innovation forms part of the Europe 2020 strategy for its role in creating job opportunities, making enterprises more competitive in the global market, improving the quality of life and in contributing to a more sustainable growth. Encouraging and stimulating innovation is one of the main objectives of European policies. The Community Innovation Survey (CIS) provides statistics analysed by types of innovators, economic activities and size classes. The survey is currently carried out every two years across the EU, some EFTA. The Innovation and Investment Division works to promote a competitive, productive enterprise environment which attracts foreign investment, supports indigenous enterprise and encourages export-led growth. The Division also promotes, on an agreed North/South basis, the development of an environment that optimises the benefits of the all-island economy for enterprises through North/South collaboration particularly in the areas of trade and business development. The Division is responsible for the development, promotion and co-ordination of Ireland's science, technology and innovation policy and Ireland's policy in international research activities. It also has responsibility for the formulation of Ireland's policy on intellectual property (IP) issues and ensures that Ireland has a modern suite of IP legislation that reflects developments in intellectual property practice and obligations arising from international agreements. In implementing this policy agenda, the Division works with and funds, in whole or in part, a number of agencies and programmes, namely IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland, Shannon Development, InterTrade Ireland and the Higher Education Authority (who administer the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions). Extent of innovation Almost half of all enterprises in the EU-28 reported innovation activity (48.9 %) during the period 2010-12. Compared with the period 2008-10, the share of innovative enterprises decreased by 3.9 percentage points. Among the EU Member States, the highest shares of innovative enterprises during the period 201012 were observed in Germany (66.9 % of all enterprises), Luxembourg (66.1 %), Ireland (58.7 %) and Italy (56.1 %) see Figure 1. The lowest shares were recorded in Bulgaria (27.4 %), Poland (23.0 %) and Romania (20.7 %).Table 1 provides an analysis of the types of innovation implemented between 2010 and 2012, namely product, process, organisation and marketing innovation. For the EU-28 as a whole, more than one quarter (27.5 %) of enterprises reported organisational innovation. Marketing innovation ranked second, being implemented in 24.3 % of all enterprises. Product innovation(innovation that encompasses new or significantly improved goods or services) was introduced in 23.7 % of enterprises. Relatively few enterprises (21.4 %) implemented process innovations. It is important to note that individual enterprises may have introduced more than one type of innovation. In general, Member States with high overall shares of innovative enterprises reported higher shares for most types of innovation. In particular, Member States with a high share of product innovative enterprises also reported a high share of with process innovative enterprises, with the notable exception of the United Kingdom. Regarding the specific types of innovation, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg presented the highest shares of product innovative enterprises, all over 30.0% of all enterprises. A greater share of enterprises implemented process innovation in Portugal, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy, again all in excess of 30.0%. As regards the introduction of new organisational methods introducing new practices or methods for organising procedures, external relations or for organising work responsibilities and decision making the highest shares were reported for enterprises in Luxembourg, Austria, Malta, the United Kingdom and France, all over 34 .0%; the share in Luxembourg was 46.8%, considerably higher than in any other EU Member State. As concerns marketing innovations, the highest shares of enterprises with such innovations were observed in Greece, Ireland and Germany, all in excess of 34.0%. Process innovation Process innovations were introduced in slightly more than one in five enterprises (21.4%) across the EU-28 during the period 201012. Based on the available data (see Table2), the most common novelty or improvement among process innovators was related to the methods to manufacture or produce goods and services. Among the EU Member States, Germany, France, Latvia and Lithuania were the leaders in this specific type of process innovation: more than 7 in 10 process innovative enterprises in these Member States reported innovations related to the methods to manufacture or produce goods and services. New or significantly improved supporting activities for processes, such as maintenance systems or operations for purchasing, accounting, or computing were implemented in nearly three fifths (58.9%) of the process innovative enterprises across the EU. Less common implementation in the process innovation context was process innovations related to new or significantly improved logistics, delivery or distribution methods for inputs, goods or services, as this was undertaken by just over one third (34.9%) of the process innovative enterprises in the EU. Sources of information Enterprises could be encouraged by their operational environment to innovate, for example in order to meet the needs or requirements of their customers or suppliers. However, enterprises may also decide to undertake innovation activities on their own initiative, as part of development strategies. In this case, information coming from other stakeholders may also arouse interest. Moreover, a concept widely found in discussions on innovation is 'open innovation': open innovation is 'the use of internal and other enterprises' ideas to develop businesses opportunities'. It is considered to be an important component of the foreseen European Innovation System. Methods for maintaining or increasing the competitiveness for product and process innovations Data on methods for maintaining or increasing competitiveness have been provided by 21 EU Member States in the 2012 data collection exercise. Based on the data shown in Figure4, more than 6 in 10 (61.9%) product and / or process innovative enterprises in the EU used lead time advantage over competitors (in other words, reducing the time lag between the initiation and the implementation of their innovations) to improve their competiveness between 2010 and 2012. Slightly more than one quarter (28.5%) of these enterprises considered this method as highly important. A similar proportion (60.6%) of product and / or process innovative enterprises used the complexity of goods or services to maintain or increase their competitiveness. Less than half of these considered this method highly important. These two leading methods (among those surveyed) were closely followed by the use of secrecy, which was used by just over half (51.2%) of product and / or process innovative enterprises in the EU. Trademarks, patents, copyrights and design registration seemed to be less used by the product and / or process innovative enterprises to maintain or increase competitiveness and a relatively small considered these methods as highly important. However, it should be noticed that the use of these methods is more common for enterprises in certain activities and the extent of their use is also related to enterprise size: for example, larger enterprises make more intensive use of patents. An increase in turnover was considered a highly important goal by 60.0% of innovative enterprises between 2010 and 2012, followed by a decrease in costs (55.4%) and an increase in profit margins (50.8%). An increase in the market share was reported as a highly important goal by 41.0% of innovative enterprises. For non-innovative enterprises, the ranking was quite similar to that for innovative enterprises, with one notable difference: the share of non-innovative enterprises reporting an increase in the turnover as a highly important goal was slightly less than the share reporting a decrease in costs. Surveyed enterprises were also asked to report strategies according to a certain level of importance. The results shown in Figure6 cover the 19 EU Member States that provided data for this subject. The intensification or improvement of marketing of goods and services was the strategy most frequently regarded as being highly important between 2010 and 2012, both for innovative and non-innovative enterprises. The next two most common strategies reported as being highly important concerned the development of new markets, either within or outside Europe, both of which were considered highly important by just over one quarter of innovative and non-innovative enterprises in the EU. The strategy of building alliances with other enterprises and institutions was the strategy least often reported as being highly important (among the strategies surveyed), by innovative and non-innovative enterprises. Data sources and availability The community innovation survey collects information about product and process innovation, as well as organisational and marketing innovation. The legal basis for collecting these statistics is Regulation 995/2012 implementing Decision 1608/2003/EC concerning the production and development of Community statistics on innovation. Innovations are based on the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service) or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations. Such innovations may be developed by the innovating enterprise itself, together with other enterprises, by another enterprise or by adapting or modifying processes originally developed by other enterprises or institutions. The simple resale of new goods and services purchased from other enterprises is not considered innovation. Innovations should also at least be new to the enterprise concerned. In some cases, innovative enterprises may cooperate with other parties and the cooperation partners may be located in other countries or on other continents. Information collected within the community innovation survey allows for an analysis of cooperation with national partners, partners from elsewhere in Europe, partners from the United States, China or India, with partners from other countries. In the 2012 data collection exercise, a particular module focused on the goals of the enterprises and on the strategies they used and the obstacles they faced to reach these goals. The results highlight the differences between innovative and non-innovative enterprises. The available indicators show the number of enterprises reporting, for instance, strong price competition, high costs of access to new markets, or a lack of adequate finance as highly important or not relevant obstacles. Bibliography ACCLAIMiP. (2014). Elon Musk's Other Motivation. Retrieved 08 14, 2014, from https://www.acclaimip.com/Elon-Musks-Patent-Decision Bakker, A., Schaufeli, W. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 147-154. Burrel, G., Morgan, G. (1992). Sociological paradigms and organization analysis elements of the sociology of corporate life. Ashgate: Suirrey. Fray, A. (2007). Ethical behavior and social responsibility in organizations: process and evaluation. Management Decisions., 45(1), 76-88. Heger, B. (2007). Linking the employee value proposition (evp) to employee engagement and business outcomes: Preliminary findings for a linkage research pilot study. Organization development Journal, 121-133. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Huxham, Chris, Eden, C. (2001). The Negotiation of purpose in multi-organizational collaborative groups. Journal of Management studies., 38(3), 373-391. ISO/IECGuide. (2009). Risk Management-Vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization. Kaiser, R., Hogan, R., Craig, S. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 96-110, 96-110. Keen, P. G. (1978). Decision support systems: an organizational perspective. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Mangham, I. (1988). Effecting Organization Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.