I think that the company should fund the project if it has sufficient funds. If the firm doesn't have enough to fund two or more proposed projects, then the one that offers the least risk or requires less money should be taken first and the bigger project should be pushed farther back. The reason is because funding big projects is quite risky especially since that means a lot of work and people may be needed in order to produce the desired results. Having small victories will lead to bigger gains in the long run. It's not worth taking a huge risk on a project that requires "too much" money to fund, especially if the project can be funded later on. I do not believe that any idea should be dropped. If an employee believes that his/her project is worth funding and has gone through a lot of trouble to make a proposal, then there must be some evidence that the project idea will yield good results. Small-scale projects will yield good results sooner so it's more prudent for a firm or company to prioritize small projects over big ones. Then, the small returns/gains from the projects could be used to fund the larger projects. A firm/company should make funding decisions based on feasibility and risk, rather than potential gains for choosing one project over the other.

The company should invest in the project if it is making steps in right direction. Not every idea has the potential to turn into a viable business. Great idea needs to solve specific kind of a problem in order to be viable. There should be a clear image about the target market. Company will look to invest in great ideas hoping to make big amount. The company need an objective idea of when their contribution can start bringing the return. Great idea should details the target customer, crucial stakeholders, the essence of the idea, the commercialization path, proposed operations, the team, financial requirements. Companies should look at innovation because best innovators are the ones who focused on lean learning and rapid risk reduction

This is a very interesting question that most likely has no correct answer. My personal opinion lies within the nature of the product. I think that often times the use of the project is overlooked when considering going through with something or not. I think that if a project, if successful, could save lives or better someones quality of life significantly, it should be funded. I know that this is a very utopic ideal, but I do believe that to my knowledge companies do not take this into consideration enough. So on top of being potentially patented I believe companies should look into what good this project could do to society.

It depends on the risks involved and the rewards of the project idea. How much funding is needed how much is the potential for the success also the time frame of the completion of the project idea. If the project has better benefits and improves the life, then in my opinion dropping the project is not a good idea if the project idea is beneficial for the future and can be patented then company should go with the project idea. There are many ways to get the funding one of which is a crowdfunding or angel investors.

The company will have to weigh out the risks and benefits of continuing the project. If the idea is completely novel and backed up with successful clinical trials, the project should not be dropped and further research should be conducted since the potential for commercial success is great. The company should then expend some resources to look for potential investors to fund the project.

Most companies invest in potential projects until there are serious signs of non-viability. They spend millions on R&D for that purpose. Every project has the potential to become the next breakthrough in the field. As said above, if they can't internally fund, they will usually look for grants or venture capitalists. However, these are usually for smaller companies. The bigger ones set aside a large portion of their budget for R&D, because they have the capital and resources to do so. No one gives up on a good idea just because they don't have the money at first.

Huge investment needed in medical device. Some of the small companies collaborate with each other for making a medical device. For instance, Medtronic are taking small companies like covidien just make profit and make a better product.The main reason for so large amount of funding required for the medical device because of so many tests performed and research. It takes minimum 2 years for the research or even more depends experiment results. Certain tests have been taken for FDA. That's the reason medical device are too costly in the market.

As an undergrad, a group of my classmates and I had to come up a phantom for micro-CT scanning. Our client for the project wanted channels a micron small and in order to do that there would require a large sum of money that we did not have access to so we created one with larger channels that was not quite what he wanted but fulfilled the main requirements in the project. Companies work in a similar fashion in that the cost to make and research a device is a deciding factor on whether to go through with it. If there is the belief that they could make a large sum back then they will go through with it but for more questionable products it might be on the part of the product team to convince the company on the usefulness of the product

This is a tough decision but it will all depend on, will it actually work and help the public because there are projects that will not make it to the public due to malfunction and or delays. There must be a full through research done on the project. However, as other mentioned, the market gap should also be researched because you cannot produce a project that cost a huge chuck of money to a small group. The money invested will never be recuperated if it focus on a small group, every project should aim on larger population. I would have to do a full through research on the project and its marker before making any decision. It is a risk that someone can win a lot or lose everything.

Hi Everyone, My thoughts are that a risk assessment and market discovery would have to be done. Is there a large demand for this new device and do the pros outweigh the cons risk wise? Would it be making a significant impact on the health of the population? Are there other projects in the company that would make a more significant impact on society and that could use the extra funding. Companies might investigate ways to cut back on costs, like by reducing the cost of manufacturing yet not compromising safety. If the device is ever patented and it does make it on the market, the company would maybe have to raise it's prices so as to actually make profit out of this. This is specially true since patent protection lasts up to 20 years and afterwards anyone can begin manufacturing and selling your invention. Overall if the project is something that has a high demand or is very promising in improving the current state of those who need it, I don't believe the project should be dropped due to a lack of funding. There are a variety of ways to obtain money for research, though difficult.

In the line of work that I am in, there are hundreds of potential projects that could be picked up. Oftentimes however, these projects are prioritized mainly according to how much it would cost/net the company and if they are required to make the change. Some very novel ideas can be delayed for months or years on end if the cost is too high, management feels the project isn't as important as others, or both. Unless there is a clear line from implementation to profit or if they are required to make a change to remain compliant to procedures/guidelines, then projects have varying success rates at coming off the ground.

I used to work in a the Department of Veterans Affairs in a group called War Related Illness and Injury Study Center (WRIISC). This group has a couple of biomedical engineers that make medical devices and test them on veterans. The problem was always with funding. The way we were funded was that we had to write papers on the research we were doing and send it to different companies. These companies could then give us funding to continue our research. This means that our research using this device has to be very thorough, meaningful and complete for a company to consider it. If it was lacking data it would automatically be discarded. The more data you collect with your medical device and the more analysis you perform, the more interested the company will be in the device.

Funding is the most essential part undoubtedly on medical industry. Anything attached with medical can cost more due to its safety regulations. For use internally or externally on human being. To be compliant with these safety regulations are needed even before it can be launched in market. To answer the question, sure this costs are more than the given funds but in return it generates a good amount when patented if suitable for use in medical industry. Furthermore, patent gives right to generate income for upto 20 years by excluding any other competitor to do so. Also claims for copies and royalties may generate significant funds if the product is that useful. This funds can be used in more research and innovation of further improved products and creat more patents.

If a company does not have funding for a project, then it can reach out to other entities for additional support, such as a federal organizations like the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Veteran's Administration, the Departments of Energy and Education (DOE), and so forth. If no external funding is provided and there's a potential of a project's costs exceeding its revenue, then it is not likely that a company will follow through with the project regardless of its potential. An NCBI article on federal support for medical device innovation states that federal funding towards the biomedical field is "small and scattered" due to the vast range of multidisciplinary aspects incorporated into biomedical engineering. Research groups that are more distinct, such as the National Cancer Institute, view the biomedical field as one that lacks the organizational focus that a standard research group is expected to have. This can be attributed to the biomedical field’s tendency of crossing regulations for i.e. electronic devices with that of drug/chemical release when designing a combination device.

The federal funding that is offered is aimed towards fields that treat a high patient count as a result of debilitating diseases and conditions. The development of neural prostheses for example, receives significant federal funding to treat trauma that results in the loss of motor function since there are no current techniques that can adequately restore trauma done to the nervous system. Research groups that develop biosensing devices and metabolic imaging are also funded since they prioritize the enhancement of detecting and diagnosing conditions while they are still treatable. What other biomedical research groups might also be candidates for federal funding? There is a substantial amount of funds geared towards the production of artificial organs, what about the improvement of minimally invasive procedures that aim to negate the need for high-cost surgery (such as investing in angioplasty to replace open-heart surgery)?

National Academy of Engineering (US); Institute of Medicine (US); Ekelman KB, editor. New Medical Devices: Invention, Development, and Use. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1988. Federal Support of Medical Device Innovation. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218283/

There are different ways to get funding for a project depending on the size of the company. It also depends on if the company is privately owned or public. Overall, I would more so look at the risk for potential reward. If the risk to reward is worth it, I would recommend taking the leap in the potential project.