IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxivy2021i2p294-313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-Offs Occurring in the Process of Commercialization of SARS-CoV-2 Test in a Narrow Window of Opportunity

Author

Listed:
  • Urszula Mikiewicz
  • Miroslaw Moroz

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the paper is to assess the choices made within the trade-offs specific for the commercialization of a biomedical product in the circumstances of a narrow window of opportunity. Design/methodology/Approach: The analysis of the literature on this subject revealed a research gap in the analysis of the trade-offs occurring during R&D works in the process of the development and commercialization of a biomedical product in the circumstances of a narrow window of opportunity for market introduction. For the sake of capturing the dynamic specificity of the innovation process and its comprehensive presentation, the authors decided to use the case study method. Findings: The results of the research suggest that focusing on one factor (time) is possible when mobilising the entire potential of the enterprise, but ultimately it does not have to translate into faster launch of serial production and taking advantage of the window of opportunity. Research shows that excessive simplifications in the area of innovation process management lead to the need to re-implement some stages of the R&D works. Practical Implications: Conclusions from the analysis of trade-offs can help managers in making key decisions within the innovative process under time pressure. Originality/Value: Despite the time pressure, it is advisable to follow the main principles of conducting the research process, in particular, defining milestones in advance, exercising critical approach to formulating assumptions, taking care of good communication between R&D discipline teams, making at least a preliminary trade-off calculation.

Suggested Citation

  • Urszula Mikiewicz & Miroslaw Moroz, 2021. "Trade-Offs Occurring in the Process of Commercialization of SARS-CoV-2 Test in a Narrow Window of Opportunity," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 294-313.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2:p:294-313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/2127/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lehrer, Mark & Nell, Phillip & Gärber, Lisa, 2009. "A national systems view of university entrepreneurialism: Inferences from comparison of the German and US experience," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 268-280, March.
    2. Angelo Corallo, 2007. "The Business Ecosystem as a Multiple Dynamic Network," Chapters, in: Angelo Corallo & Giuseppina Passiante & Andrea Prencipe (ed.), The Digital Business Ecosystem, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Morris A. Cohen & Jehoshua Eliasberg & Teck-Hua Ho, 1996. "New Product Development: The Performance and Time-to-Market Tradeoff," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(2), pages 173-186, February.
    4. Kim, Yongjae, 2017. "The effect of process management on different types of innovations: An analytical modeling approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 771-779.
    5. Carmen Weigelt & MB Sarkar, 2012. "Performance implications of outsourcing for technological innovations: managing the efficiency and adaptability trade‐off," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 189-216, February.
    6. A. Messica & A. Mehrez, 2002. "Time-to-market, window of opportunity, and salvageability of a new product development," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(6), pages 371-378.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thakur-Wernz, Pooja & Bruyaka, Olga & Contractor, Farok, 2020. "Antecedents and relative performance of sourcing choices for new product development projects," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 90.
    2. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    3. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Kathy A. Paulson Gjerde & Susan A. Slotnick & Matthew J. Sobel, 2002. "New Product Innovation with Multiple Features and Technology Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1268-1284, October.
    5. Fiona Kun Yao & Kaifeng Jiang & Danielle R. Combs & Song Chang, 2022. "Informal institutions and absorptive capacity: A cross-country meta-analytic study," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 1091-1109, August.
    6. Emilio Bellini & Giuseppe Piroli & Luca Pennacchio, 2019. "Collaborative know-how and trust in university–industry collaborations: empirical evidence from ICT firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1939-1963, December.
    7. Lutz Kaufmann & Jens Esslinger & Craig R. Carter, 2018. "Toward Relationship Resilience: Managing Buyer‐Induced Breaches of Psychological Contracts During Joint Buyer–Supplier Projects," Journal of Supply Chain Management, Institute for Supply Management, vol. 54(4), pages 62-85, October.
    8. Armstrong, Michael J & Levesque, Moren, 2002. "Timing and quality decisions for entrepreneurial product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 88-106, August.
    9. Hyoung Jun Kim & Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2021. "Cost–benefit model for multi-generational high-technology products to compare sequential innovation strategy with quality strategy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Lim, Wei Shi & Tang, Christopher S., 2006. "Optimal product rollover strategies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(2), pages 905-922, October.
    11. Erica Plambeck & Qiong Wang, 2009. "Effects of E-Waste Regulation on New Product Introduction," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(3), pages 333-347, March.
    12. Mallik, Suman & Chhajed, Dilip, 2006. "Optimal temporal product introduction strategies under valuation changes and learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 430-452, July.
    13. Bauer, Florian & King, David & Matzler, Kurt, 2016. "Speed of acquisition integration: Separating the role of human and task integration," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 150-165.
    14. Shubham Gupta & Abhishek Roy & Subodha Kumar & Ram Mudambi, 2023. "When Worse Is Better: Strategic Choice of Vendors with Differentiated Capabilities in a Complex Cocreation Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2833-2851, May.
    15. McSweeney, Jordan J. & McSweeney, Kevin T. & Webb, Justin W. & Sandoval, Rosalyn G., 2022. "Passion drove me here: Exploring how types of entrepreneurial passion influence different entrepreneurial intentions," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    16. Rupak Rauniar & Greg Rawski & Donald Hudson, 2017. "Antecedents And Consequences Of Ippd Effectiveness," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(07), pages 1-38, October.
    17. Wenqing Wu & Kexin Yu & Saixiang Ma & Chien-Chi Chu & Shijie Li & Chengcheng Ma & Sang-Bing Tsai, 2018. "An Empirical Study on Optimal Strategies of Industry-University-Institute Green Innovation with Subsidy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    18. Jehoshua Eliashberg & Anita Elberse & Mark A.A.M. Leenders, 2006. "The Motion Picture Industry: Critical Issues in Practice, Current Research, and New Research Directions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 638-661, 11-12.
    19. Emre M. Demirezen & Subodha Kumar & Bala Shetty, 2020. "Two Is Better Than One: A Dynamic Analysis of Value Co‐Creation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(9), pages 2057-2076, September.
    20. Joglekar, Nitindra R., 2003. "Performance of coupled product development activities with a deadline," Working papers WP 4122-00., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Biomedical product; innovation process; trade-off relation; SARS-CoV-2 testing.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • L65 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Chemicals; Rubber; Drugs; Biotechnology; Plastics
    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:2:p:294-313. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.