Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper addresses some of the issues facing new product development in the medical device sector and reviews some of the financial decision-making methods currently used to aid in project selection. The fundamental limitations and deficiencies of these methods are discussed. An alternative, real options (RO)-based approach to project management is proposed as a much better way of managing uncertainties and understanding the relationships between the risk and the opportunities in a product development lifecycle. Although the RO technique is not especially new, its application to the medical device sector is novel. An RO valuation example, using a binomial lattice approach, is given and the implications for project selection and company strategy are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ram

(1989). Expert systems: An emerging technology for selecting new product winners. J. Prod. Innovat. Manage. 6(2), 89–98.

DJS research (2003) European Medical Device Market Research Report, Octomedia.

Cooper

R. G.

Kleinschmidt

E.J.

(1986). An investigation into new product process: Steps deficiencies and impact. J. Prod. Innovat. Manage. 3(2). 71–85.

Cooper

R. G.

(1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Bus. Horizons 33(3). 44–54.

Rochford

Rudelius

(1997). New product development process: Stages and successes in the medical products industry. Ind. Market. Manage. 26, 67–84.

Craven

M. P.

(2007). Routes and requirements for realising pervasive medical devices. in Bardram

J.E.

Mihailidis

Wan

(eds.), Pervasive Computing in Healthcare, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 217–241.

Johal

S. S.

Williams

H. C.

(2005). MATCH Guide on Decision making methods that could be used to assess the value of medical devices. MATCH Report. (available at www.match.ac.uk).

Mills

R. W.

(1988). Measuring the use of capital budgeting techniques with the postal questionnaire: A UK perspective. Interfaces 18(5). 81–87.

Pike

Sharp

(1989). Trends in the use of management science techniques in capital budgeting. Manage. Decis. Econ. 10(2). 135–140.

10.

Akalu

M. M.

(2003). The process of investment appraisal: The experience of 10 large British and Dutch companies. Int. J. Project Manage. 21(5). 355–362.

11.

Dixit

A. K.

Pindyck

R. S.

(1994). Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

12.

Faulkner

T. W.

(1996). Applying ‘options thinking’ to R&D valuation. Res. Technol. Manage. 39(3). 50–56.

13.

Nichols

N. A.

(1994). Scientific management at Merck: An interview with CFO Judy Lewent. Harvard Bus. Rev. 72(1). 88–98.

14.

Bowman

E. H.

Moskowitz

G. T.

(2001). Real options analysis and strategic decision making. Org. Sci. 12(6). 772–777.

15.

Lint

Pennings

(2001). An option approach to the new product development process: A case study at Philips Electronics. R&D Manage. 31(2), 163–172.

16.

Neely

J. E.

III de Neufville

(2001). Hybrid real options valuation of risky product development projects. Int. J. Technol., Pol. Manage. 1(1). 29–46.

17.

Rogers

M. J.

Gupta

Maranas

C. D.

(2002). Real options based analysis of optimal pharmaceutical research and development portfolios. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41(25). 6607–6620.

18.

Kellogg

Charnes

J. M.

(2000). Real-options valuation for a biotechnology company. Finan. Anal. J. 56(3). 76–84.

19.

Cameron

A. C.

Bashshur

R. L.

(2001). A real options model for the financial evaluation of telemedicine, American Telemedicine Association Annual Meeting, Ft Lauderdale.

20.

Cox

J. C.

Ross

S. A.

Rubinstein

(1979). Option pricing: A simplified approach. J. Finan. Econ. 7(3), 229–263.

21.

UK Debt Management Office, website, http://www.dmo.gov.uk/gilts/data/ accessed 31st November, 2005.

22.

Luehrman

T. A.

(1998). Investment opportunities as real options: Getting started on the numbers. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76(4), 51–58.

23.

Schmidt

J. B.

Calantone

R. J.

(1998). Are really new product development projects harder to shut down?. J. Prod. Innovat. Manage. 15(2). 111–123.

Better Decision Making for Evaluating New Medical Device Projects: A Real Options Approach

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References