Market dominance, R&D grant funding, and innovation outcomes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Hogan ◽  
Mark Humphery‐Jenner ◽  
Tran T.L. Huong ◽  
Ronan Powell
Keyword(s):  
Grant Funding ◽  
Market Dominance ◽  
Innovation Outcomes

Speeding-Up Innovation with Business Hackathons

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Myrna FLORES ◽  
Matic GOLOB ◽  
Doroteja MAKLIN ◽  
Christopher TUCCI
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Open Innovation ◽  
Entrepreneurial Ecosystems ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Short Period ◽  
User Centric ◽  
Specific Challenge ◽  
Innovation Outcomes ◽  
The Way

In recent years, the way organizations innovate and develop new solutions has changed considerably. Moving from ‘behind the closed doors’ style of innovating to open innovation where collaboration with outsiders is encouraged, organizations are in the pursuit of more effective ways to accelerate their innovation outcomes. As a result, organizations are establishing creative and entrepreneurial ecosystems, which not only empower employees but also involve many others to co-create new solutions. In this paper, we present a methodology for organizing hackathons, i.e. competition-based events where small teams work over a short period of time to ideate, design, prototype and test their ideas following a user-centric approach to solve a specific challenge. This paper also provides insights into two different hackathons organized in the United Kingdom, and Mexico, as well as a series of 5 hackathons organized in Argentina, Mexico, Switzerland, United Kingdom and in Senegal.

Collaborating for Innovation

2019 ◽  
pp. 586-609
Author(s):  
Peter G. Klein ◽  
Mark D. Packard ◽  
Karen Schnatterly
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Structure ◽  
Organizational Design ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Spillover Effects ◽  
Employee Motivation ◽  
Corporate Entrepreneurship ◽  
Marketplace Of Ideas ◽  
Collaborative Innovation ◽  
Barriers To Collaboration ◽  
Innovation Outcomes

This chapter looks inside the firm at how organizational design affects collaboration in pursuit of corporate entrepreneurship or “intrapreneurship.” It shows how the intrafirm “marketplace” of ideas, employees, and resources can be strategically configured to encourage or inhibit collaborative innovation. The chapter focuses on the key structural dimensions of autonomy, sponsorship, and incentives. Complementarities between these dimensions create spillover effects that produce unique innovation outcomes by mitigating barriers to collaboration such as knowledge problems, resource constraints, and employee motivation. Illustrating configurations of these dimensions with company examples, the chapter shows how organizational design affects intrapreneurship and offers suggestions on how firms might strategically align their organizational structure with their intrapreneurial strategy.

scholarly journals POS0293 TRheuMa REGISTRY PROVIDES FIRST EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENT COURSE OF RHEUMATIC IMMUNE-RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS AND TUMOUR RESPONSE RATES DEPENDING ON THE TUMOUR ENTITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 372.3-372
Author(s):  
L. Diekmann ◽  
L. Daniello ◽  
J. Kunz ◽  
J. Leipe ◽  
H. M. Lorenz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tumour Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Grant Funding ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Underlying Malignancy ◽  
Tumour Entity ◽  
Melanoma Patients ◽  
Funding Institution ◽  
Nsclc Patients ◽  
Research Grant

Background:Rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAE) are associated with a better tumour response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). In contrast to other irAEs, their potentially chronic course may require long-term immunosuppressive treatment.Objectives:Our registry-based study analyses real-world data on the characteristics and outcome of rheumatic irAEs and underlying malignancy. Herein, we present first evidence that these parameters and the optimal clinical management may differ depending on the tumour entity.Methods:The TRheuMa registry is a prospective long-term observational study of a patient cohort suffering from rheumatic side effects of cancer therapies with focus on ICI. It is part of the MalheuR project initiated in July 2018 at the University Hospital Heidelberg to explore interrelations of malignancies and RMDs.Results:64 patients were recruited due to a rheumatic irAE under ICI treatment (nivolumab n=30, pembrolizumab n=33, ipilimumab n=12, PD-L1i n=5, ipi/nivo n=10) with a follow-up of up to 30 months. Of these, 47% had NSCLC and 41% melanoma. In local cohorts of patients receiving ICI, 4% of NSCLC (n total=888) and 13% of melanoma (n total=195) developed a rheumatic irAE. 7% of NSCLC and 23% of melanoma patients experienced a flare of a pre-existing RMD. De novo irAE mostly resembled phenotypes of spondyloarthritis both in NSCLC (43%) as well as in melanoma patients (33%). CRP levels were increased in 83% of NSCLC and 71% of melanoma patients. Almost all irAE patients showed autoantibody negativity and signs of inflammation in ultrasound examination (96%). Comparison of best responses to treatment in patients with and without rheumatic irAE in melanoma and without any irAE in NSCLC patients were as following: Complete remission (CR) in 48% vs. 4% of melanoma patients and partial remission (PR) in 68% vs. 41% of NSCLC patients. In accordance with our severity-based treatment algorithm, 25% of the melanoma patients in CR and 16% of the NSCLC patients in PR needed add-on DMARDs for sufficient irAE-treatment. ICI-treatment was discontinued in 7 cases (17% NSCLC, 8% melanoma)Conclusion:Prospective real-world data from the TRheuMa-registry provide first evidence that rheumatic irAE have distinct characteristics depending on the underlying malignancy. Oncological outcome was better with rheumatic irAE than in their absence and this effect was more pronounced in melanoma patients despite a larger use of immunosuppressants for irAE-treatment.Disclosure of Interests:Leonore Diekmann: None declared, Lea Daniello: None declared, Julia Kunz: None declared, Jan Leipe Consultant of: Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Abbvie; Astra Zeneca; BMS; Celgene; Hospira; Janssen-Cilag; Gilead; LEO Pharma; Lilly; MSD; Roche; Sanofi; UCB., Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (self): Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Hanns-Martin Lorenz Consultant of: Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly, Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (institution): Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (institution), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly; Research grant/Funding (institution): Baxter; SOBI; Biogen; Actelion; Mundipharma; Bayer Vital; Octapharm; Sanofi; Hexal; Thermo Fischer; Shire., Jessica Hassel Consultant of: MDS; Honoraria (self): Roche; Novartis; Pierre Fabre., Grant/research support from: BMS; Honoraria (self), Karin Jordan Consultant of: Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Merck; MSD; Riemser; Helsinn; Tesaro; Kreussler; Voluntis; Pfizer; Pomme-med; Hexal., Petros Christopoulos Consultant of: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda., Grant/research support from: research funding from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Karolina Benesova Grant/research support from: Foundations and Awards” commission of the University of Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg; AbbVie; Novartis; Rheumaliga Baden-Württemberg e.V

Gender Differences in Successful NIH Grant Funding in Otolaryngology

2013 ◽  
Vol 149 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Anderson Eloy ◽  
Peter F. Svider ◽  
Olga Kovalerchik ◽  
Soly Baredes ◽  
Evelyne Kalyoussef ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Grant Funding

A discriminant analysis of high and low-innovative firms: the role of IT, human resources, innovation strategy, intellectual capital and environmental dynamism

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simona Popa ◽  
Pedro Soto-Acosta ◽  
Daniel Palacios-Marqués
Keyword(s):  
Discriminant Analysis ◽  
Human Resources ◽  
Incremental Innovation ◽  
Organizational Capital ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Innovative Firms ◽  
It Knowledge ◽  
Innovation Outcomes ◽  
Selection Practices

Purpose This paper aims to examine the effect of technological, organizational and environmental factors on the level of innovation outcomes in manufacturing small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the technology-organization-environment theory this paper conducts a discriminant analysis of firms’ innovation level based on a data set of manufacturing SMEs. Findings The results show that low- and high-innovative firms can be distinguished in terms of information technology (IT) knowledge and infrastructure, commitment-based human resources (HR) selection practices, exploitative innovation and organizational capital. Practical implications The study findings support the idea that innovation is a complex phenomenon explained by multiple factors. As a consequence, firms need to devote extra efforts to develop IT knowledge and infrastructure, commitment-based HR selection practices and organizational capital because these are crucial for obtaining greater innovation outcomes. In addition, the identification of exploitative innovation as a strong discriminant variable highlights that the most effective way to be a highly innovative SME is through incremental innovation, which permits the firm to capitalize as much as possible on previous exploratory efforts. Originality/value Although many studies have highlighted that innovation is more challenging for SMEs than for their larger counterparts, the vast majority of studies has been conducted in large companies. This paper extends prior literature by analyzing the discriminant variables that may distinguish between low- and high-innovative manufacturing SMEs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document