University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda

Accepted versio

Acute Stroke Imaging Research Roadmap II.

The Stroke Imaging Research (STIR) Group, the American Society of Neuroradiology, and the Foundation of the American Society of Neuroradiology sponsored a series of working group meetings >12 months, with the final meeting occurring during the Stroke Treatment Academy Industry Roundtable (STAIR) on March 9 to 10, 2013, in Washington, DC. This process brought together vascular neurologists, neuroradiologists, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss stroke imaging research priorities, especially in the light of the recent negative results of acute stroke clinical trials that tested the concept of penumbral imaging selection. The goal of this process was to propose a research roadmap for the next 5 years. STIR recommendations include (1) the use of standard terminology, aligned with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Common Data Elements. ; (2) a standardized imaging assessment of revascularization in acute ischemic stroke trials, including a modified Treatment In Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) score. ; (3) a standardized process to assess whether ischemic core and penumbral imaging methods meet the requirements to be considered as an acceptable selection tool in acute ischemic stroke trials. ; (4) the characteristics of a clinical and imaging data repository to facilitate the development and testing process described in recommendation no. 3. ; (5) the optimal study design for a clinical trial to evaluate whether advanced imaging adds value in selecting acute ischemic stroke patients for revascularization therapy. ; (6) the structure of a stroke neuroimaging network to implement and coordinate the recommendations listed above. All of these recommendations pertain to research, not to clinical care

Feedback in the ERP value-chain: what influence has thoughts about competitive advantage

Different opinions about whether an organization gains a competitive advantage (CA) from an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system exist. However, this paper describes another angle of the much reported competitive advantage discussion. The basic question in the paper concerns how thoughts about receiving competitive advantage from customizing ERPs influences feedback in ERP development. ERP development is described as having three stakeholders: an ERP vendor, an ERP partner or re-seller, and the ERP end-user or client. The question asked is: What influence has thoughts about receiving competitive advantage on the feedback related to requirements in ERP development? From a set of theoretical propositions eight scenarios are proposed. These scenarios are then illustrated from interviews with stakeholders in ERP development. From an initial research, evidence for six of these eight scenarios was uncovered. The main conclusion is that thoughts about competitive advantage seem to influence the feedback, but not really in the way that was initial assumed. Instead of, as was assumed, having a restrict view of providing feedback stakeholders seems to be more interested in having a working feedback loop in the ERP value-chain making the parties in a specific value-chain more interested in competing with other parties in other ERP valuechains