Advertisement

The emergence of health technology organizations among institutional healthcare and economic actors

  • M. Beaulieu
  • P. Lehoux
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Few studies have considered the creation of health technology organizations where the entrepreneurs seize opportunities, create their entrepreneurial organization and provide it with legitimacy, and examined the triggers, constraints and pressures involved in this process. To study the emergence of such firms, we performed semistructured interviews with 20 entrepreneurs and strategic partners involved in the development and commercialization of health technologies. For each stage of the firm emergence process, we identified triggers and enablers, as well as barriers and constraints encountered by entrepreneurs, and pressures originating from institutional actors. We found that each stage of startup emergence had triggers where the entrepreneur faced a conflicting situation in the form of boundary misalignment, competing technologies, poor performances, and resource asymmetry. Each topic is examined in the light of neo-institutional theory and finally replaced within a larger process in which the entrepreneur addresses market and healthcare system needs and interacts with other actors. In each stage, we identified a predominant institutional process taking place, whether it was decoupling, organizational field influence or legitimation seeking. The present study aimed at understanding the process by which an opportunity is seized, an organization is created and an institution as big as a healthcare system is approached. The results may help entrepreneurs and decisionmakers understand the strategies engaged following pressures from the healthcare organization. Likewise, it could increase investors’ awareness of the emergence process of health tech businesses and stimulate mutual understanding between entrepreneurs, and economic and healthcare actors.

Keywords

Innovation in health Institutional entrepreneurship Opportunities Neo-institutional theory Health technologies Competitive actions Social construction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and their many insightful comments, as these comments led to an improvement of the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

I have full contributions to this manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests

The author declares that there are no competing interests.

References

  1. Barber, D. H., & Crelinsten, J. (2009). Understanding the early-stage and start-up R&D performing firms. (pp. 43): The Impact Group.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, J., Vasileiou, K., Djemil, F., Brooks, L., & Young, T. (2011). Understanding innovators' experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 342.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. (2009). The role of narratives in sustaining organizational innovation. [article]. Organization Science, 20(1), 107–117.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basdeo, D. K., Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., Rindova, V. P., & Derfus, P. J. (2006). The impact of market actions on firm reputation. [article]. Strategic Management Journal, 27(12), 1205–1219.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battista, R. N., & Lafortune, L. (2009). Health technology assessment and public health: A time for convergence. European Journal of Public Health, 19(3), 227.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beaulieu, M., & Lehoux, P. (2018). Emerging health technology firms’strategies and their impact on economicand healthcare system actors: a qualitative study. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 77(11), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-018-0092-5.
  7. Beckert, J. (1999). Agency, entrepreneurs, and institutional change. The role of strategic choice and institutionalized practices in organizations. [article]. Organization Studies, 20(5), 777–799.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840699205004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergsland, J., Elle, O. J., & Fosse, E. (2014). Barriers to medical device innovation. Medical Devices (Auckland), 7, 205–209.  https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S43369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callon, M. (1988). La science et ses réseaux. Paris, France: Éditions. La Découverte.Google Scholar
  10. Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's dilemna. New York, NY: Harper Business.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. [review]. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, D. (1996). New paradigms for change? Theories of organization and the organization of theories. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(4), 9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colomy, P. (1998). Neofunctionalism and neoinstitutionalism: Human agency and interest in institutional change. [article; proceedings paper]. Sociological Forum, 13(2), 265–300.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193816858. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, D. J., Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. (2006). Examining "institutionalization": A critical theoretic perspective. In O. Greenwood, Sahlin, Suddaby, eds (Ed.), The Sage handbook of organisational institutionalism (pp. 673–701). Londres, Royaume-Uni: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Daniel, G., Colvin, H., Khaterzai, S., McClellan, M., & Aurora, P. (2015). Strengthening patient care: Building an effective national medical device surveillance system. (pp. 75). Washington, DC: Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at Brookings.Google Scholar
  16. Davidsson, P. (2015). Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: A re-conceptualization. [article]. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 674–695.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.01.002. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dea, N., Fisher, C. G., Batke, J., Strelzow, J., Mendelsohn, D., Paquette, S. J., et al. (2016). Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: A patient-level data cost-effectiveness analysis. [article]. Spine Journal, 16(1), 23–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.062. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demko, P. (2014). How healthcare's Washington lobbying machine gets the job done. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20141004/MAGAZINE/310049987. Accessed December 22 2016.
  19. Dimaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Pensacola, FL: Ballinger Pub Co.Google Scholar
  20. Dimaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. [article; proceedings paper]. Organization Studies, 26(3), 385–414.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605050873. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drummond, M., Griffin, A., & Tarricone, R. (2009). Economic evaluation for devices and drugs-same or different? Value in Health, 12(4), 402–404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_1.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040004003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond. New York, NY: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 196–214.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. [article]. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Giorno, G. W., & Meunier, P. B. (2015). New lobbyists’ code will restrict dealings with Canada’s federal government and agencies. http://www.fasken.com/new-lobbyists-code-will-restrict-dealings-with-canadas-federal-government-and-agencies/#_ftn1. Accessed December 22 2016.
  29. Girling, A., Young, T., Brown, C., & Lilford, R. (2010). Early-stage valuation of medical devices: The role of developmental uncertainty. Value in Health, 13(5), 585–591.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00726.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  31. Glasziou, P. (2012). Health technology assessment: An evidence-based medicine perspective. [article]. Medical Decision Making, 32(1), E20–E24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.  https://doi.org/10.2307/259163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. [article]. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069285. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hallet, T., & Ventresca, M. (2006). How institutions form: Loose coupling as mechanism in Gouldner's patterns of industrial bureaucracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 908–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hatch, M. J., & AL, C. (2006). Organization theory. Modern symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Havighurst, C. C. (2008). Disruptive innovation: The demand side. Health Affairs (Millwood), 27(5), 1341–1344.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Herzlinger, R. E. (2006). Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 58–66 156.Google Scholar
  39. de Holan, P. M., & Phillips, N. (2002). Managing in transition - a case study of institutional management and organizational change. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(1), 68–83.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492602111022. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hwang, J., & Christensen, C. M. (2008). Disruptive innovation in health care delivery: A framework for business-model innovation. Health Affairs (Millwood), 27(5), 1329–1335.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.5.1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keppler, S. B., Olaru, M., & Marin, G. (2015). Fostering entrepreneurial investment decision in medical technology ventures in a changing environment. [article]. Amfiteatru Economic, 17(38), 390–407.Google Scholar
  42. Lawrence, T. B. (1999). Institutional strategy. [article]. Journal of Management, 25(2), 161–187.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. [article]. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495305. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leca, B., Battilana, J., & Boxenbaum, E. (2008). Agency and institutions: A review of institutional entrepreneurship. In Harvard Business School Working Paper: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  45. Lehoux, P., Williams-Jones, B., Miller, F., Urbach, D., & Tailliez, S. (2008). What leads to better health care innovation? Arguments for an integrated policy-oriented research agenda. Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 13(4), 251–254.  https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2008.007173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Llopis, O., & D'Este, P. (2016). Beneficiary contact and innovation: The relation between contact with patients and medical innovation under different institutional logics. [article]. Research Policy, 45(8), 24–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDA treatment advocacy in Canada. [article]. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 657–679.Google Scholar
  49. Martin, J. L., & Barnett, J. (2012). Integrating the results of user research into medical device development: Insights from a case study. [article]. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12, 10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martin, J., Polisena, J., Dendukuri, N., Rhainds, M., & Sampietro-Colom, L. (2016). Local health technology assessment in Canada: Current state and next steps. [article]. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 32(3), 175–180.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462316000210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Metrick, A., & Yasuda, A. (2010). Venture capital and the finance of innovation (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organisations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.  https://doi.org/10.1086/226550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller, D. (2015). A downside to the entrepreneurial personality? [editorial material]. Entrepreneurship. Theory and Practice, 39(1), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller, F. A., & French, M. (2016). Organizing the entrepreneurial hospital: Hybridizing the logics of healthcare and innovation. [article]. Research Policy, 45(8), 46–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nanda, R., & Rhodes-Kropf, M. (2012). Investment cycles and startup innovation. (pp. 56): Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  56. Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. [article]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(2), 257–292.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2393853. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada (2015). Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/eic/site/012.nsf/eng/h_00014.html. Accessed December 22 2016.
  58. Oliver, C. (1988). The collective strategy framework - an application to competing predictions of isomorphism. [article]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 543–561.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2392643. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. [article]. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258610. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Organisation mondiale de la Santé. (2010). Landscape analysis of barriers to developing or adapting technologies for global health purposes. In World Health Organization (Ed.), Global initiative on health technologies. Geneva: Organisation mondiale de la Santé.Google Scholar
  61. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2008). Networks and Institutions In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 822). Londres, Royaume-Uni: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  62. Perkmann, M., & Spicer, A. (2007). Healing the scars of history': Projects, skills and field strategies in institutional entrepreneurship. [article; proceedings paper]. Organization Studies, 28(7), 1101–1122.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Petkova, A. P., Rindova, V. P., & Gupta, A. (2013). No news is bad news: Sensegiving activities, media attention, and venture capital funding of new technology organizations. Organization Science, 24(3), 865–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 22, 2000: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (Vol. 22, pp. 237–281, research in organizational behavior). San Diego, CA: Jai-Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  65. Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. [article]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 219–244.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2393354. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. [article]. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rindova, V. P., Petkova, A. P., & Kotha, S. (2007). Standing out: How new firms in emerging markets build reputation. [article]. Strategic Organization, 5(1), 31–70.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127006074389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sanders, C., Rogers, A., Bowen, R., Bower, P., Hirani, S., Cartwright, M., et al. (2012). Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the whole system demonstrator trial: A qualitative study. [article]. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Santos, F. M., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Constructing markets and shaping boundaries: Entrepreneurial power in nascent fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 643–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  72. Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. [article]. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6588004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sherer, P. D., & Lee, K. (2002). Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 102–119.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Silva, H. P., & Viana, A. L. (2011). Health technology diffusion in developing countries: A case study of CT scanners in Brazil. Health Policy and Planning, 26(5), 385–394.  https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czq076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Snowdon, A., & Cohen, J. (2011). Strengthening health systems through innovation: Lessons learned. Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation.Google Scholar
  76. Snowdon, A., Zur, R., & Shell, J. (2011). Transforming Canada into a global Centre for medical device innovation and adoption. Ivey International Centre for Health Innovation.Google Scholar
  77. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tarabusi, C. C., & Vickery, G. (1998). Globalization in the pharmaceutical industry, part II. [article]. International Journal of Health Services, 28(2), 281–303.  https://doi.org/10.2190/b6vr-nnd7-46bl-py5g. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taylor, R. S., & Iglesias, C. P. (2009). Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medical devices and drugs: Are they that different? Value in Health, 12(4), 402–404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00476_2.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. [article]. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal-structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil-service reform, 1880-1935. [article]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), 22–39.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2392383. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutionnalization of institutional theory. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 175–190). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  83. Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Trigub-Clover, A., & Lamarche, P. A. (2009). La coexistence des secteurs privé et public et la performance des systèmes de soins de Santé In L. P. d. l. U. d. Montréal (Ed.), Le privé dans la santé: un débat sans fin? (pp. 206–223). Montréal, QC: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  85. Vendeville, G. (2015). Five things to know about Bill 10. http://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/bill-10-in-5-questions. Accessed December 22 2016.
  86. World Health Organization (2010). Innovative technologies that address global health concerns: Outcome of the call global initiative on health technologies. In World Health Organization (Ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  87. Yang, C. W., Fang, S. C., & Huang, W. M. (2007). Isomorphic pressures, institutional strategies, and knowledge creation in the health care sector. [article]. Health Care Management Review, 32(3), 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 234–254.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Management, Evaluation and PolicyInstitute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM)QuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations