Chapter 3: Visions: Creating New Ventures

With rapid globalised changes in health regulations, medical technology is a fast-growing, lucrative but highly competitive industry. In particular, companies which specialise in producing more or less the same medical devices, often struggle to distinguish their product, as well as their corporate identity, from the rest. This case study charts the ways in which English company – Medisys Plc, tackled a diverse range of entrepreneurial challenges within the healthcare market, whilst introducing their version of a safer syringe to potential consumers. Download the full case study here: Chapter 03 Case Study 

Chapter 3: Questions

1. How does this case relate to the ‘entrepreneurial process’?

Guidance anwer:

Section 3.1.1. notes that, ‘The entrepreneurial process that takes us from idea generation and opportunity recognition to the point where an opportunity is exploited, or converted into a real venture.’  This case covers the second and third parts of the process, which is also illustrated in Figure 3.1.

2. How does the Medisys case compare to that of SimplySwitch and Good Energy (Case 3.1)?

Guidance answer:

In Case 3.1, Karen Darby and Juliet Davenport, articulated their personal visions in ways that engaged key audiences.  In doing so, they created two highly successful enterprises.  Other factors that may have influenced the different outcomes in the cases of SimplySwitch and Good Energy include the way that changes in legislation created a new opportunity for these companies, whereas FDA approval represented a significant obstacle to Medisys, and the operational issues that Medisys faced as it sought to develop its innovative design.

3. What was the role of credibility in the establishment of Medisys’ Futura syringe?

Guidance answer:

Credibility is discussed in Section 6.4.4. In the case of Medisys as a new venture the company sought to gain credibility by hiring managers who had experience in the relevant markets. They also sought to work with credible marketing intermediaries (such as Smiths Industries) and they also sought to gain credibility for their product by having it validated by the FDA for example.

4. Was the potential market size an advantage or disadvantage for Medisys?

Guidance answer:

Section 6.4.2 deals with market size and potential. One of the attractions of this market for Medisys was the potential size of the market, which was very substantial indeed. The potential market size and the possible rewards in terms of sales also helped to attract investors to Medisys. However the potential market size also meant that this was a market that would be very attractive to much larger organizations and one which existing competitors would seek to defend. In addition Medisys also sought to focus on the mainstream market, rather than any niche, which also made the marketing challenge more difficult.

5. What actions had Medisys undertaken which demonstrated that they had sought to understand their customers?

Guidance answer:

Section 6.4.4 deals with understanding customers. Healthcare product procurement by hospitals in the United States can involve well-defined buying procedures, for example some hospitals will have long-term contracts with established suppliers and distributors. They may also want to have data supporting the efficacy of the products that they are buying. For these reasons, Medisys had had to set up pilot sites where the products could be validated by nursing staff and they also had to engage with marketing intermediaries such as Smiths, who already had distribution contracts.

6. What is your assessment of the market gap that Medisys had identified?

Guidance answer:

Section 6.4.5 deals with the notion of the market gap. As events transpired it had become clear that the market gap that Medisys and a number of other new ventures had identified did not really exist – in the volumes that they had expected, nor indeed did the gap necessarily require the types of solutions that they had to offer. Stimulating the perception of the gap was a change in U.S. legislation. In the event this did not necessarily require hospitals to move over to safety syringes as Medisys and others had hoped. In some instances healthcare worker safety could be improved through better training, in other instances, technologically less sophisticated products could achieve what was required.