Innovation and Invention Are Teachable Processes

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.—The commonly held belief is that invention is a spontaneous process, the product of a burst of genius at a fortuitous moment. But in most fields, and specifically in the field of medical devices, there are methods to innovation that can be taught and learned, providing unique opportunities to improve patient care.

“Spontaneous invention is just one component,” said Todd J. Brinton, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center in Stanford, Calif., during a scientific symposium. “It’s not just the spontaneous process of invention, but innovation is the broad pathway of understanding the clinical need and really understanding the pathway of getting technology to patient care.” Brinton co-directs the Biodesign Program at Stanford, where the aim is to teach fellows in the program methods to innovate in the field of medical devices.
Invention as a process

The process they teach focuses first on identifying needs; in this way, the patient can drive medical invention rather than technology itself pushing the process. After identifying a wide range of technological needs, the focus is then narrowed to only a few needs that are most promising. From there, the process expands out again to suggest numerous technological concepts that might address those needs. Finally, the most promising of those are selected to actually focus time and efforts on implementation.

“In academia, bench research really dominates a good portion of what’s happening in the invention process in basic science discovery,” Brinton said. On the other side, he noted, there is an understanding that large device companies are the ones producing practice-changing inventions; but there is a gap between those two sides. “Unfortunately no one really teaches the true translational process about taking what happens in basic labs and what happens in clinics and moving it to patients.”

Embracing failure

Another important point is that a crucial component of the translational, innovative process is an understanding and acceptance of failure. Failing often and quickly can lead to improved innovative techniques as one moves past those failures. Furthermore, it is important to fail early in the process. Peter J. Fitzgerald, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical Center who spoke along with Brinton, said that most failures tend to occur not during the innovation or invention phases but in the execution phase – the actual act of bringing a new device to market.

 “Knowing your market, knowing who controls the patent, knowing how it’s going to get reimbursed, knowing how it is going to be cost comparative and cost effective—those executive phases are probably the most important to integrate into this process and to understand that those have the highest probability of failure,” Fitzgerald said. He reemphasized that there is a clear need to bridge a gap between bench science and fundamental innovation and the end result.

There is evidence that the idea of teaching a specific innovative process as a discipline unto itself can indeed produce results. The Stanford Biodesign program has led to the creation of more than 20 companies, and the fellows have filed for more than 200 patents. Together, these devices and companies have created 350 jobs and treated more than 55,000 patients. But Brinton said the most important product is the people themselves who will use these innovative techniques in the future. “What we have is a generation of inventors and entrepreneurs who are trying to get out there and create changes for clinical patients.”