I couldn't agree more with your perspective on investing in a project. It is indeed crucial to have a clear understanding of the target market and the potential for the idea to become a viable business. The company should also have a clear picture of the financial requirements, the target customer, the essence of the idea, the team behind it, and the commercialization path. Having a clear and detailed plan of these elements can help the company make an informed decision on whether to invest in the project. It's great to see that you also emphasize the importance of focusing on lean learning and rapid risk reduction, which can be crucial for success in innovation.
In this situation, I believe it depends on how viable the project is. In a perfect world, all projects would be able to be funded, but as there are limited resources, companies must carefully scrutinize what they invest their time and resources into. In this case, the company is already struggling with funding, so it would not be wise to gamble with a project that is highly experimental, for example, the development of a new drug that is capable of treating MS. The project may have a high upside, but the science behind the drug is untested and may take many years before it is fully understood. A more feasible project would be one with a more established unknown where there is less risk involved. Ultimately, we must remember that most companies look to profit from their investments, so a project with little to no chance of being commercially successful will most likely not receive funding.
Suppose that the idea is perfect and nobody has funded it yet. I think the company will apply for a patent first. Even though the company doesn't have enough budget to initiate this project, applying for a patent can prevent plagiarism from others' imitations. I believe that applying for a patent is affordable for a company. I don't think the company would discard a perfect idea. This idea will become a company property, a patent that can be sold, or a collaborative development project with other companies.
While many have stated that the company should fund the project and go for the patent, the initial post only says that the project idea has a potential to be patented in the future. In the medical device industry, there are hundreds, even thousands of ideas that have the potential to be patented in the future. However, not all these ideas can be funded by a company. Even the top of the top pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be able to afford to fund all the ideas provided to them. In my opinion, it takes a team of experienced and skilled higher level positions to be able to decide which ideas and projects they want to purse for the quarter or the year or even multiple years. I have seen projects that were ongoing for many years being cancelled, and projects that were in newly developing stages being cancelled as well. At the end of the day, not every idea with a potential will be funded, but that's where presenting the idea and backing up the presentation is extremely important because it could lead to a game changing medical device or product and immense success for the company.
I think it depends on the current financial situation of the company. If the company is doing really well then they might be able to bite the bullet. Otherwise, they might have to re-prioritize projects and focus on the ones that have higher earning potential.
Ideas born out of creativity have the power to make our lives more productive. While many excellent ideas may possess the potential to replace existing apparatus and devices with innovative ones, it's crucial to consider the consequences of such changes. Exploring new ideas and technologies can bring about shifts in various industries and impact stability in our daily lives.
Taking the example of Hoover's Craft Car and Transporter, which has been an idea for at least 30 years, one must question why governments have not extensively investigated and implemented such projects. One significant aspect to consider is the impact on existing industries, particularly the tire and oil companies. Removing or replacing certain technologies could lead to job displacement and economic challenges for workers in these industries.
In essence, as we pursue new ideas, it becomes essential to align our aspirations with a thorough assessment of the potential consequences. Understanding the broader implications can guide us in making informed decisions about the implementation of innovative technologies and their long-term effects on industries and employment.
I just saw the title of this section and thought that I could ask my question, which is related to this topic. In the world of business, companies are always looking for ways to innovate and stay ahead of the competition. This often involves taking on high-risk, high-reward ventures that require significant investment. However, securing funding for these projects can be a major challenge, and the funding landscape can change significantly as projects progress from initial concept to clinical trials and commercialization. My question is, how do companies navigate these potential hurdles and ensure that they have the resources they need to succeed?
A lack of funding is not a positive sign when proposing a new project. While the project may have patent potential, you need to ask yourself why there has not been funding for the project. Is the project unrealistic? Is there no market for the product? Is the project too expensive? Is the project unnecessary? Are there similar products already on the market? Once you have figured out why there is a lack of funding, you can then use discernment to make a decision on whether or not it is worth continuing the project.
I really believe that funding should depend on how long that this project has been in the works for. If the project is running out of funds because it has lasted a long time, but the team is very close to the finish line I think the company should definitely keep pumping money in to a potentially life altering device. However, if the project has not improved in multiple weeks, months, or years I think moving funds into other projects would be the better suggestion. In regards to project that are in early stages I think if the project has the potential to completely change the lives of the public then money should definitely still be put into it. The difference I am trying to show is something like a cancer curing drug or device as compared to a new style of dental crown. I think a cancer curing drug should have all the attention in this scenario because so many people die from this illness and this could be a life changing invention. In the end, if there is really a project that has potential like the one I have mentioned I think the company should put everything they have into making it work. Whether that means asking for donations or finding other companies that will help with funding, the company should find other ways to get money before considering shutting down the project.
A project's decision to be pursued with the possibility of future patenting, even in the absence of funding, might be influenced by a variety of factors. It would be a smart idea to move on with the project if it fits with the company's objectives and has the potential to add a substantial amount of value down the road. To comprehend client demands and the level of demand for the project's final product, market research is crucial. It's also critical to determine if the project's output or the product itself is patentable. Project development can also be aided by government grants, industrial collaborations, and money for research.
