Collaboration and Innovation in Food Industry

In the dynamic economic environment where knowledge is vastly distributed companies can no longer rely on their own research and are pushed to utilize outside sources to sustain growth. At the same time food industry involves large number of horizontal and vertical relationships, the very dynamic nature of these relationships play role in innovation. In order to fully capitalize on supplier-customer collaboration it becomes vital to understand the dynamic relation between packaging and processing industry and need to operate closely, develop ways to identify good partners and create & maintain fruitful collaboration. Based on this understanding the primary purpose of the research is to study interactions and relations between stakeholders in food industry, to gain an understanding of the driving forces for development in food processing and packaging technologies.This understanding can then be utilized to identify the barriers for collaboration.Title Collaboration and Innovation in Food Industry - Study on collaboration of packaging and process equipment industry with food manufacturing. Author Mustafa Ali Ashfaq Bombaywala Supervisor Malin Göransson, PhD Student at Division of Packaging Logistics, Department of Design Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. Issue of study In the dynamic economic environment where knowledge is vastly distributed companies can no longer rely on their own research and are pushed to utilize outside sources to sustain growth. At the same time food industry involves large number of horizontal and vertical relationships, the very dynamic nature of these relationships play role in innovation. In order to fully capitalize on supplier-customer collaboration it becomes vital to understand the dynamic relation between packaging and processing industry and need to operate closely, develop ways to identify good partners and create & maintain fruitful collaboration. However the research on collaboration with packaging and processing equipment industries as well as academia is rather limited. Purpose The primary purpose of the research is to study interactions and relations between stakeholders in food industry, to gain an understanding of the driving forces for development in food processing and packaging technologies. Also gain insight into the innovation process at major Packaging solution provider (PSP) and Process equipment manufacturers (PEM), their interaction, collaboration and information sharing with food manufacturing companies (FMC). This understanding can then be utilized to identify the barriers for collaboration. Method The research follows an inductive approach which starts with a premise and structure is built around the conceptual framework and the research objectives. Secondary data collected through literature survey was utilized to develop a conceptual model. Primary data was collected through interviews with experts from the industry and academia who have experience in working with innovation and collaboration. A non-probability sampling technique was adopted and II Semi-structured interview technique was followed. The interviews were transcribed to text and categorized under common themes which for analysis and comparison. To ascertain the credibility of the data it was triangulated and compared to literature. Conclusion The views of industry experts strongly reflect that the role of suppliers of processing and packaging in food industry is “contractual” in nature, whereas ingredient suppliers tend to be more mature partners in the innovation process. The innovation process at major food machinery and packaging companies corresponds well to the ‘food-machinery framework’ of open innovation (Bigliardi et al., 2010). It is apparent that food industry is taking steps to integrate external knowledge sources in the innovation process, still suppliers continues to play limited strategic role in innovation. Some barriers to collaboration were identified and they can be grouped into two types: technical and perspective. Technical factors constitute lack of technical expertise amongst food manufacturer, requirement for legal framework and difficulty in predicting future needs. But the more imperative barriers are lack of trust, skepticism about new technologies and conflict of interest Trust continues to be the major barrier for collaboration and further research needs to be focused on this aspect

Outcomes and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) versus Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) amongst Patients with Valvular Heart Disease (VHD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Both valvular heart disease (VHD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist. AF is an important cause of arrhythmias with a definitive cardiovascular morbidity. The use of either vitamin K antagonists (VKAs/warfarin) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (also known as new oral anticoagulants (NOACs)) has been the mainstay for preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with VHD and/or AF, and this has been broadly discussed. However, there are limited studies on anticoagulation therapy for patients with valvular atrial fibrillation (VAF). The main aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcomes (stroke–vascular events and intracranial bleeding) following DOAC and VKA treatment amongst patients with VAF. Methods: We identified clinical trials and observational studies published in the last 10 years. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with valvular atrial fibrillation following DOAC vs. VKA treatment. Data evaluation was performed using Review Manager 5.4; the endpoints were stroke–vascular events and intracranial bleeding following DOAC and VKA treatment amongst VAF patients. Risk ratios (RR) were evaluated with 95% confidence intervals. Using random effects models, forest plots were obtained. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I2 statistic. Results: Eight studies were included in this metanalysis, and a total of fifteen thousand two hundred and fifteen patients (DOAC (8732) and VKA (6483)) were pooled. We found a significant risk reduction in stroke–vascular events when using DOACs in comparison with using VKAs (pooled RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.64–0.90, p = 0.002). A total of 14862 patients (DOAC (8561) and VKA (6301)) were pooled from a total of six studies for intracranial bleeding. We found a significant risk reduction in terms of intracranial bleeding when using DOACs in comparison with using VKAs (pooled RR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.24–0.77, p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions: When compared to VKAs, DOAC agents were found to have less risk of stroke–vascular events and intracranial bleeding. Further prospective studies are essential to establish the efficacy and safety of DOAC agents in patients with various subtypes of VAF