Internal perspective
The internal structure of this company is hierarchical and organized. There are seven directors present in the board under whom the senior management team of the company operates successfully. This board of directors are expectant to introduce newest technology in the firm’s operation that the company gains competitive challenge. The company has communication and knowledge gap that increase its vulnerability to competition. The senior management team of FutureMed is made of the heads of all the departments of the company like finance, operation, marketing and R&D. As the traditional organizational structure of a settled company usually has FutureMed also have it where the senior management teams meet and review on the progress of the company and identify the merits and demerits of the company projects. Still the problem prevails within the company which is lagging it behind due to incapability of innovation. The company however thinks that it has been following a relatively successful approach as the shareholders are getting more or less good returns.
The main problem of this particular company is that it is following a traditional method of business despite the fact that it is currently doing business on such a product like radiopharmaceuticals, which needs a proper up to date approach matching with the needs and expectation of the market and customers. The conservative corporate culture of FutureMed enables the managers to follow high resistance of change in their survey respeonses. The younger employees of the organization do not get support to introduce their new ideas and thoughts in improving the situation. The company lacks approach that creates ground for innovation to apply disruptive technologies. In addition to this, the senior management team are not so vigilant as well as quick to spot the potentiality of the company in introducing new innovations of the nuclear medication methods applied in the company. However, shareholders are aware of these changes in the market and have proper knowledge of the market demands of such medicines hence they are expecting better returns than that they are getting now.
The product the company provides mainly radiopharmaceuticals, has a bright and growing future in the Australian wellness sector but it needs to introduce change. In order to employ the disruptive innovation method, the company needs to have a proper approach to challenge the orthodoxies it has been suffering from (King and Baatartogtokh 2015). In identifying potential impact of disruptive technologies, the company needs to have more systematic approach so that the senior management team can successfully create or identify potential disruptive technologies. This systematic approach includes the ability to see the changes in the market ahead of the others which is quite easy for FutureMed as this have a huge experience in operating in the Australian market for long years (Sandström, Berglund and Magnusson 2017). Next the company needs to accept those changes as the opportunities rather than the threats for the survival. The main objectives of the company need to be freer in the thinking process and serve the customers in different and newer ways so that the base of loyal customers does not get inclined towards he new startups. Thirdly, the company needs to avoid its belief of an established companies as disruptive innovation does not allow the settle for the better as the nature of the market always change. Finally, the resource allocation system needs to have change as the senior employees are accepted as more resourceful than the youngers so they latter do not get part of resources needed for them to operate successfully in the company (King and Baatartogtokh 2015). These are the method how the company needs to examine the industry or company orthodoxies regularly and challenge them periodically so that it can cope up with the change and grab the newer and emerging opportunities present in the market.
External perspective
The external situation of the company includes the economic legal and situation, and the commitments and relationship with all the stakeholders associated with the operation of the company in the competitive market of Australia. As FutureMed follows the method of orthodox operation in the workplace, therefore, their decision-making process also have traditional outlook. This also affect the terms and policies of the company. The senior management team is directly connected to the board of directors who are locked with the commitments given to the shareholders. They are committed to the proper executions of the plans through production and meet all the demands of the analysts and the investors of FutureMed. Not only these stakeholders but all the human resource providers and the suppliers have their personal connection with the company through commitments. In this regard, the commitment has not been perfectly executed as the philosophy of the organization is quite conservative hence the introduction to the changes has no place. This is the reason why though the company feels satiated with the mediocre income but the stakeholders are not. The expectation of the investors and suppliers are quite demanding and so also that of the customers. This directly relates to the innovation process of the firm in all-inclusive way (Corsi and Di 2014). Therefore, the problems have arisen when the firm has entered into the commitments without assessing the potential impact on the innovation capabilities of the organization.
Another important factors that affecting the innovation process of the firm externally is associated with the regulations and legal procedures for the companies that of develop and market radiopharmaceuticals in Australia. This is due to the fact that this type of drugs is radio active in nature and have unique medicinal formulations with containing radioisotopes (Sampere, Bienenstock and Zuckerman 2016). Such type of radiopharmaceuticals companies needs to have proper registration on the ARTG or Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. This however increases problem of innovation of the companies as getting registered on the ARTG is quite difficult. On the other hand, entering the neighboring country like New Zealand and Indonesia is quite easy as the regulation system does not have much strictness to develop radiopharmaceuticals or bring changes in it. In addition to this, the company also have financial problems to raise capital for funding the development of the new radiopharmaceuticals as this is still a developing science that do not have much business financers to feel the need of the market and feel comfortable to invest in such risky sector.
Through disruptive innovation system the company can effectively solve such issues. Firstly, the senior management as well as the board of directors need to first asses their potential impacts on the innovation capacity and the needed resources or support for the successful changes or innovation in the company based on which they will be entering the commitments to the shareholders, suppliers, employees, respire providers and analysts (Marx and Hsu 2015). The approach will be customers centric as this company is serving the customers regarding their wellness and health. In such cases, the company can decide to limit the interference of the stakeholders in proper managing of the external factors as well as innovation tools for the advancement of their projects or products (Christensen, Raynor and McDonald 2015). Secondly, as the regulation system of Australia is creating hindrance for proper implementation of the changes or innovation process hence they must opt for entering the new market and earn more than it is earning in the Australian market. Thirdly, the systematic approach is not present in the structure of FutureMed for which it is not being able to attract the investors through huge amount of returns (King and Baatartogtokh 2015). Hence possible and needed changes in the corporate culture is mandatory to make the stakeholders feel comfortable for investment.
Marketing perspective
Marketing perspective:
Marketing perspectives include the process of examining the market properly and how the corporation can find the opportunities present in the market in one hand and understand the potential of the customer needs. The problem with FutureMed is that it generally depends upon the market research conducted by the research and development department of the company. Therefore, this department only focusses on the focus group activities that directs them towards the center of the target market of the company. In such respect, this particular department does not care about including new targets except doctors or physicians. This ultimately results into the lower customer visit programs and less empathetic designs (Goeddel et al. 2015). Secondly, the R&D department of the company does not have proper understanding of the demand of the groups that they are actually targeting. Finally, it can be said that the innovative change that the company will be introducing in the product as well as process of the firms do not have any base as these are not dependent upon the reviews and demands of the lead users of the projects therefore understanding the proper impact of new changes are not clear to the company based on which it will be making further changes.
As mentioned before, the company needs to be more customer centric and introduce changes based on the demand and constant medicinal improvement in the country. This is the reason why proper examination of the target market and differentiation based on their demand is needed (Gupte et al. 2016). FutureMed needs to differentiate the target market based on diagnostic laboratories, hospitals, venture capitalists and business research and consulting service providers so that they can serve the huge customer based of Australia efficiently. The company if successfully know the actual demand of their customers based on these differentiations, it will be easy to identify what different products each of these customer bases demand. This will be easing the company’s R&D department to research on different products and bring innovation in each segment. In this regard, customer visit method to gain customer insight is important (Kain, Hwang and Warner 2015). Secondly to bring the needed changes in the company through disruptive innovation, the management directly visit the market as well as targeted institutions like laboratories, hospitals and customers. Thirdly, the company needs to have proper collaboration in the cross functional teams like R&D and marketing so that a proper base of information can be grown and a dependable source can be developed from which all level of employees gets their needed shares for supporting the innovation of the projects. By increasing cooperation among the departments of the company and thinking more open mindedly will reduce mush of the problems.
In addition to this, it can be stated that the company operates in such a market in which the process and product innovation is mandatory otherwise the products of the company will lose its importance and affect the sustainability of the company itself (Munos and Orloff 2016). The company has to be following the empathetic design process that may incur positive result in grabbing the consumer’s intention. It is the method of capturing the latent needs of the customers and building such product that the customer has never dreamt of (Spinks et al. 2017). In many cases the radiopharmaceuticals medicine users do not know what they actually want. In addition to this, the doctors or physicians also feel the need of such drugs but cannot prescribe those as the availability of such drugs are limited. Therefore, it can be stated that the company needs to collect information about the needs as well as solution from these customers and lead users except those who are at the center of the target market. Finally, the company needs to increase the research process so that it can develop new product lines for reaching more and variety of customers present in the market of Australia.
Challenges faced by FutureMed
Technological perspective of disruptive innovation includes the company’s technological strategies for supporting innovation. In the organizational setting the issue of conservative outlook for the change among the management as well as employees of the organization has posed hindrance to the technological development of the company. It does not have process to support any new idea or research process how it can systematically approach the potential disruptive technologies in the workplace. As mentioned before, the organizational setting of FutureMed does not have apt process to be quick to spot the disruptive technology opportunities or judge their implementation based on new scientific discoveries.
In case of FutureMed, technological perspective is important as this not only support the product innovation but also the management and process innovation of the firm. In the Radiopharmaceuticals industry of Australia, there has been a scope for research (Jung and Padman 2015). This is due to the fact that it has shown future prospects in recent day medical science and very few companies in the country has proper knowledge as well as investors in developing Radiopharmaceuticals drugs for curing complex diseases. Under such circumstances, the company needs to increase vigilance for disruptive innovation opportunities and follow TRIZ tool that will solve problem through analysis and forecasting of all the identified disruptive innovation opportunities. TRIZ tools are mainly the patterns of technical evolution that tend to repeat themselves across the industries. They support the creative innovations on the basis of scientific effects outside the field of development (Teece, Peteraf and Leih 2016). These will be helping the company to manage disruptive technologies as well as invest in the sustaining innovation by developing good relationship with all the stakeholders and customers. This will help FutureMed to sell more products to their most profitable customers. Hence the company needs to grab every opportunity given by the market of Australia through increased demand as well as lower competition in the radiopharmaceuticals industry.
References:
Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R., 2015. What is disruptive innovation. Harvard Business Review, 93(12), pp.44-53.
Corsi, S. and Di Minin, A., 2014. Disruptive innovation… in reverse: Adding a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation theory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(1), pp.76-90.
Ghezzi, A., Cortimiglia, M.N. and Frank, A.G., 2015. Strategy and business model design in dynamic telecommunications industries: A study on Italian mobile network operators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, pp.346-354.
Goeddel, L.A., Porterfield, J.R., Hall, J.D. and Vetter, T.R., 2015. Ethical opportunities with the perioperative surgical home: disruptive innovation, patient-centered care, shared decision making, health literacy, and futility of care. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 120(5), pp.1158-1162.
Gupte, G., Vimalananda, V., Simon, S.R., DeVito, K., Clark, J. and Orlander, J.D., 2016. Disruptive innovation: implementation of electronic consultations in a Veterans Affairs health care system. JMIR medical informatics, 4(1).
Jung, C. and Padman, R., 2015. Disruptive digital innovation in healthcare delivery: the case for patient portals and online clinical consultations. In The Handbook of Service Innovation(pp. 297-318). Springer, London.
Kain, Z.N., Hwang, J. and Warner, M.A., 2015. Disruptive innovation and the specialty of anesthesiology: the case for the perioperative surgical home. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 120(5), pp.1155-1157.
Karimi, J. and Walter, Z., 2015. The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), pp.39-81.
King, A.A. and Baatartogtokh, B., 2015. How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation?. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), p.77.
Marx, M. and Hsu, D.H., 2015. Strategic switchbacks: Dynamic commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 44(10), pp.1815-1826.
Munos, B.H. and Orloff, J.J., 2016. Disruptive innovation and transformation of the drug discovery and development enterprise. Boston: US National Academy of Medicine.
Sampere, J.P.V., Bienenstock, M.J. and Zuckerman, E.W., 2016. Debating disruptive innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), p.26.
Sandström, C., Berglund, H. and Magnusson, M., 2014. Symmetric assumptions in the theory of disruptive innovation: Theoretical and managerial implications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(4), pp.472-483.
Spinks, J., Jackson, J., Kirkpatrick, C.M. and Wheeler, A.J., 2017. Disruptive innovation in community pharmacy–Impact of automation on the pharmacist workforce. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 13(2), pp.394-397.
Teece, D., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S., 2016. Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. California Management Review, 58(4), pp.13-35.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
