Chaba's Profile

It’s interesting to hear about Open Innovation in Pharma, one of the more ‘closed’ or tightly controlled industries that come to mind. You’ve made a compelling case for the urgency with which Pharma companies are compelled to adapt their business model in the face of new challenges. The industry is plagued with long R&D cycles and low success rates for new innovations; something needs to change. Whilst I don’t see the ‘External crowd sourcing: COCKPI-T’ initiative as a long-term solution, the ‘Hybrid model: Innovation Park “Shonan iPark’ may herald a new era for the company – an expression of just how seriously they are taking innovation. To your question of how Takeda can manage the risks of Open Innovation, without stifling creativity, Apple’s open developer ecosystem proves that this is possible. Being first to market is everything in this industry, as it is in the tech industry. By embracing Open Innovation, Takeda can get ahead of their competitors, and by ensuring the right patent protections are in place, they can stay ahead.

Great use of secondary sources!

A thought-provoking article that explores the many benefits of 3D printing for a retailers such as Adidas. ‘Did Adidas benefit from being a first mover in the industry?’, I would argue not – I believe both Adidas and Nike are neck-and-neck in the race to win the 3D printed footwear market. Whilst Adidas may have taken on the in-sole, Nike is leaping ahead in its innovations for the ‘upper’ footwear (textiles). Earlier this year, Nike announced the first 3D printed upper with the ‘Nike Flywheel’. Additive Manufacturing technology is fast becoming widespread and as such, the novelty of being ‘first to market’ adds little in the way of competitive advantage to the likes of Adidas or Nike. Success will be determined by who can bring down the costs for consumers most quickly.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading this; the visuals really make it come to life!

Interesting piece and something we can (almost) all relate to – having lived through the hells of the head-brace. To your final question ‘should AT remove their reliance on single source suppliers?’ I agreed that it most certainly should. Given that AT’s earliest patents are soon to be expiring, and taking into account the plethora of other risks that you outline, I would suggest that it is time AT shift their focus from R&D, to scaling as rapidly as possible. A single source supplier will always present a challenge to the speed of this expansion.

Thoroughly enjoyed reading your piece. Could benefit from more puns.

Extremely interesting piece on a fascinating area of healthcare! To your question ‘What are the consequences of one company controlling a technology that has such incredible public health potential?’, it’s my view that the negative consequences largely outweigh the positives. By limiting the potential of Flatiron’s technology to the sole preserves of Roche, the scale of impact is drastically reduced. The main benefit is that Flatiron’s leadership are no longer wasting its time and effort on fundraising and can now focus on delivering on its long-term strategy without the hindrance of financial concerns. Roche will need to demonstrate that Flatiron is being given the autonomy it deserves, to innovate in the best-interest of their patients rather than purely to please investors.

Thank you for sharing!

12 hours a week?? You make an excellent case for why we need to take note of the growing phenomenon of dating apps. Your post raises two intriguing questions and highlights what for me is the greatest challenge that dating apps face – ‘Our preferences may be shaped by our interactions with others’. I would argue that until Hinge can find a way to integrate this truth into their business model, the longevity of their business will always be at risk. To your second point ‘How can machine learning allow us to identify and eliminate biases in our dating preferences?’, I believe the existence of bias presents dating apps with an opportunity rather than a risk. If dating apps can enlighten users of their biases, for example by offering transparent live data analytics on user’s preferences, we can all be that much more aware of how these biases may be affecting our search for a romantic partner.

Really enjoyed your piece, thank you for sharing!

A well-crafted and enlightening post – you present a case that we can certainly all learn something from! You pose two very interesting questions. To the second question – does this model of open innovation scale – I would argue yes. Through maximising the use of technology and gathering extraordinary amounts of data, Clover has ultimate transparency over their business and is thereby able to make their model consistent across the globe. My challenge with this business model, and similar companies such as Joe and the Juice who claim to be pioneering a more creative approach within the food industry, is the tendency to confuse creativity with technology. I remember being struck by a Boston Globe article which explained the overblown efforts to be innovative: ‘Sensors and computers monitor the soil-moisture levels of restaurant plants and water them automatically, sparing workers a menial task and giving them time better spent interacting with customers or honing kitchen skills.’ In seeking to be innovative, have they gone too far?

Really enjoyed reading this, thank you for sharing!