Competition & Partner dynamics

Based on the given funding programme criteria and needed expertise, external project partners will be added to the R&D-team/project.

To continue the project, the R&D-team undoubtedly needs external suppliers providing the expertise missing, needed to complete the project. By keeping the inter- and intra- stakeholder dynamics/connections in mind, the most optimal partners can be chosen. At this stage of the project it will have become clear that the R&D-team misses cer- tain expertise to further develop the MT. By charting the needed/missing expertise and

pooling possible partners it becomes clear which external supplier can provide RaM with

this expertise. This pool still contains a set of competitors. From here the inter- and

intra-stakeholder connections can be established. Figure 4.4 illustrates, via a Fenn-style

diagram, the dynamics of these relationships.

Figure 4.4.:Fenn-style diagram showing the inter- and intra-connections, via overlaps 1 to 7, of the four main globalized stakeholders in the de- sign process.

Requesting party - Bottom left

Designing party - Bottom right External supplier - Top right

Competitors - Top left

The difference with the stakeholder analysis in Section 4.2.2, is that the pool created there can be (re)categorized over the four globalized stakeholders, showing the (market) connec- tions between those stakeholders. Based on this information a more in depth indexation of stakeholders can be made to select partners and indicate competitors.

Figure 4.4 shows a very globalized analysis which centres the four main globalized stake- holders. The stakeholders listed in Chapter 4.1 nest under one of these four groups which are the Requesting party, Designing party, External suppliers and the Competi- tors. Starting with the expressed need, RaM tries to accommodate in this need. as seen in overlaps 5-7, but does not have all the needed expertise. An external suppliermight be beneficial to increase the knowledge, overlaps 3-4, increasing the total knowledge span to 3-4-5-7. But not only RaM will try to accommodate in this need, but also competitors, overlaps 1-3, will do so. These competitors might also have need for external suppliers, overlaps 2-3. And this external supplier will have its own interests in the the expressed need, overlaps 3-4-5. This example shows the level of complexity already present with only four stakeholders and gives an indication of how to think when choosing external partners. Here theexternal supplierscould choose to cooperate with thedesigning partyrather than the competitors, based on the premise that overlap 7 is larger than overlap 1.

With this knowledge these possible competitors can be selected and removed from the pool

to approach them as to befriend them.

Competition dynamics

If either RaM or the approached parties declines this cooperation, the possible competitors become actual competitors. The R&D-team will have to accept the competition, index the

project information leaked during negotiations and check patents hold by these parties.

This last step is normal practice, but after presenting competing parties that hold relevant patents with your project it is most likely that they will have a heightened focus on the project than when it was presented to them. If the negotiations as tobefriend the (possible)

competitors are successful, these parties can bere-added tot to (possible) partner pool.

Partner dynamics

The selection of partners will depend on the needed expertise, as they need to fill the cur-

rent knowledge gap present within the R&D-team. However, as mentioned in Section 4.2.6, the chosen funding programme will also set requirement regarding the team composition flow from the requirements set by the funding programme [23, 43, 44]. Do the selected

external supplier agree with a collaboration effort? If no, a reselection of partners needs

to be made. If so, the selected partners perhaps give new funding possibilities to which the R&D-team was not eligible during the choosing of the funding in Section 4.2.6. If this is

4.2. The Decision Making Model

brief, funding criteria and other points, will determine if the R&D-team will opt for other

suppliers (replacing the current selection) or terminate the project. If the changes are

Design creation & research

ICER

Purchasing funds

Unsufficient funds Debatable amountof funds

Chart (general) funds BUYER

RR Proven system in actual

operational environment Yes Headroom analysis Headroom Threshold analysis Acceptable threshold Acceptable RoI Value dossier Return on Investment No headroom

Add ICER results to value dossier

Demonstrated technology in relevant environment

Completed and qualiefied system Demonstrated prototype in relevant environment Yes Yes Yes

Business model fit

BUYER RR No Yes LL Unacceptable RoI Unacceptable threshold Value dossier Value dossier Value dossier

Business model buyer

Value dossier

User prefrences dossier Business model buyer

Data bundle Combindng analysis data Data bundle Data bundle B B B B B B B B Develop MT Develop MT Develop MT Develop MT B GG HH II KK User comfort Diagnostic qualities Item adjudication SotA investigation

Perform ICER with items i and SotA A or B B

Current hospital equipment Compare MT with

Determine market position A

Golden standard Select items i for ICER

Treatment qualities

Business fit buyer

Core model + Add results to Data bundle C No No No No QQ MM NN PP

4.2. The Decision Making Model