Planning workshop for Incucelerator - 29th May from 2-6pm @ MoH -Ground Floor Room 8. RSVP with @jon_herries and she will add you to the invite.
Agenda expected to include:
Will post the planning documents and outputs - please feel free to comment. If you can’t make it either post here or comment on the documents.
Very sorry to miss this - have prior commitments in Auckland. Look forward to seeing the documents, outputs and outcomes!
Here are the slides for this afternoon. Feel free to read through and contribute here if you aren’t able to make it.
uploadedfile:135826144
This might be a useful addition - some data we are collecting on international health accelerators and incubators.
uploadedfile:135826581
Latest version with the outputs from the workshop (I am a bit slower than I would like)… Next step work on what the answers best look like. Thanks for the help so far.
uploadedfile:139604677, uploadedfile:139604689
Jon, what do the overseas accelerators have to say about getting their health innovations adopted into usual care/best practice? Translation was a priority area coming out of the recent NZ Health Research workshops and I wonder if there are lessons available from elsewhere which could help you to your 3 success criteria quickly.
Good question, not sure that widespread adoption is the big focus in most accelerators. From our perspective I think we need to be a bit different - but my immediate priority is to fill the channel (can’t scale what we don’t have) - so we need to develop our solutions with this in mind.
From what I have seen elsewhere the primary focus is “first customer” and then “exit”. My experience with NDRC in Ireland supports this. What I have heard from local people in the start up scene and from my international contacts that facilitate this type of process - exit is the primary focus.
That being said - I think scaling is probably as much of interest to us as exit might be - question is what helps with adoption. Some of the thoughts I would have is that getting a first customer is critical, second is having a business model which can be delivered and scaled, third is impact - and knowledge of the potential impact of the solution. The right combination of these things then leads to adoption - delivering it is hard though - particularly the last one - this might be interesting:
opengraphobject:[351561246978257 : https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/07/29/slow-ideas : title=“Sharing Slow Ideas | The New Yorker” : description=“Some innovations spread quickly. Atul Gawande asks, How do you share the ones that don’t?”]
That’s a nice piece - required reading for all healthcare innovators?
You find this of interest follow on from our conversation yesterday. Eileen
Thanks Eileen. Do you know what the outcome of the May mtg was?
Good catch up yesterday. Thanks for your time.
Posted above, June 25 by Jon
Targeting exit is a good discipline - only happens once you achieve a requisite level of product and business model validation. Optimal model would include channels to both customers and proven acquirers. If we could take a leaf out the Israeli accelerator playbook…
Have you got any links or details about the Israeli model @Elliott_Kernohan ?
Ha, I should have expected that follow up. Was swapping experience/impressions on this with another NZ medtech who was visiting there recently. Let’s call it a method - it may well be a model described somewhere but I’d need to do some research. A lot of it is to do with establishing a dense culture of serial medtech.
a. a ruthless focus on exit - the ‘product’ is the startup company itself, not the health tech. set a trajectory to exit, know your acquirers first. Once either exited or failed, do it again.
b. corollary of this is to not commercialise prematurely (‘is there an acquirer’ is not same as ‘is it good healthcare?’)
c. intensive co-working in incubator offices (pretty basic I understand, not flashy)
d. local health system strongly aligned with practice leaders in key markets
e. really deep and active advisory culture - serial, experienced health tech entrepreneurs with immediate reach into the US health system: for research partners, customers and acquirers. many hands make light work.
f. co-investment from government and a sophisticated private sector seems to provide enough funding to be credible in larger markets (US and Europe), …and enough to fail fast.
My thoughts are unscientific, but would be interesting to see if can be validated.
Here is a link to something that arrived in my in-tray this morning: an incubator that has turned into a vibrant innovation community linking smaller actors with major players (having failed at incubation!).
https://www.healthxl.com/blog/running-and-championing-digital-health-accelerators?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blog_wk_37
opengraphobject:[351561249409853 : https://www.healthxl.com/blog/running-and-championing-digital-health-accelerators?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=blog_wk_37 : title=“Running and Championing Digital Health Accelerators” : description=“From a corporate environment, working with accelerators, to becoming an accelerator, working with other accelerators - Martin Kelly CEO of HealthXL gives his account of the journey that led his company out of infancy to a global operation working with 5 of the top 5 pharma’s in the world.”]