Companies like Theranos and 23andMe represent a trend in healthcare of preventative, personalized and patient oriented healthcare. Better, faster, and cheaper monitoring of your health with the aim to prevent becoming ill, isn’t that the ultimate form of healthcare? Theranos for example, compares itself with the scale you use to monitor your weight, instead they provide a scale that provides you with information on the wellbeing of your entire body. Yet, who’s weight is being helped by monitoring it on a daily basis?
Innovation has become a buzzword, and not surprisingly, there are many innovation myths. Scott Berkun has debunked some of these false stories, from the myth of epiphany to the myth that your boss knows more about innovation than you.
Reading about the current status of the legal industry does not make one happy. Yet, never before equity partners of large law firms earned as much as they do today. A profession in crises, but what is the problem?
What is disruptive innovation? Clayton Christensen defined it as a cheaper, inferior, niche product that in a short period of time upends the entire market. Larry Downes and Paul Nunes, have a different opinion. In their view, disruptive innovations do not have to start as inferior, nor are necessarily linked to technology, making disruptive innovations an even greater threat to even more industries than ever before.
Everyone knows healthcare is changing, but the focus is typically focused on the impact of Obamacare, the financial and reimbursement side of medicine. At the same time, also on the medical front, things are changes drastically. Innovations that enable preventative care, represent the personalization of medicine, and put the patient instead of the doctor in charge of monitoring their health, seem to be the current trend.
Products are not successful, it is the people behind the scenes that make these products successful. Hence the efforts of innovators is a better indicator of where the product is going than the product itself. Thirty years of research has not made us better in predicting innovation success. To be more innovative, we need more people engaged in innovation, and be more stringent in the efforts they put in to validate their ideas.