Derek Innovates

The following is a list of the courses and extracurricular activities that supplemented my purpose in addressing the process of innovation.

 

 

BIOEN 5301 Introduction to biomaterials

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The University of Utah general catalog 2013 describes the course as “…designed to introduce students to the various classes of biomaterials in use and their application in selected subspecialties of medicine. This introductory class provides an understanding of material bulk and surface properties, standard characterization tools, the various biological responses to implanted materials, the clinical context of their use, manufacturing processes, and issues dealing with cost, sterilization, packaging, and design of biomedical devices. It also addresses professional and ethical issues encountered in the design, sale and use of medical implants.” This course provided me with holistic knowledge regarding the processes and considerations involved with biomedical device production. Many items were discussed that determine not only how to engineer and determine the viability of a product or technology for clinical use, but also the several factors affecting the product’s access and success within a target market including affordability, product adoptability and even potentially conflicting sectors of law. During the course we were also required to work in teams to design a biomedical device that would be superior to its predecessor for a specific application. My team designed a carotid shunt. Everything that we learned in the course was required in developing our solution and presenting it. This content led me to new insight on my problem.

 

By exploring the process of biomedical device engineering I became aware of specific barriers within the process. Of these I found that the cost and process of patenting were largely involved. A thorough understanding of the term biocompatibility helped distinguish patentable differentiations regarding a specific application for a given device. It soon became evident that only companies with sufficient cash and lawyers were capable of competing in the market as with any innovative technology. This becomes a particularly difficult process for individuals attempting to take to market technologies that they have developed independently. How can this process be streamlined for them when they have no prior experience or knowledge of the potential dangers in engaging the patenting process? Acknowledging the isolation of these companies from independent engineers and their level of external collaboration, I asked myself how they might collaborate in a more open fashion to inspire and share resources? These questions weighed on my mind as I thought about my problem.

 

Cost of manufacture was something that was deemed important to contemplate when devising a new device. The importance of considering usability while measuring and contrasting the risks of use against the benefits was also instilled into our minds. As these barriers were considered I wondered how new independent innovators would become aware of them. Many of them seem obvious once you have been introduced to them but how would they otherwise be addressed by someone lacking such education? Should innovation be limited to the sole engineers formally educated on the subject? How could the process of innovation be manipulated to direct them intuitively through the process or even without being aware?

 

The questions that I asked myself along the way allowed me to further visualize my problem. I found that the content and experience of this course was essential for understanding avoidable hazards and several types of potential barriers that may exist during the process of innovation.

 

 

FP MD 4500 Global Health Perspective

The University of Utah’s general catalog 2013 describes the course as “An introduction to public health providing students with a global perspective on disease and wellness on a population basis. The course content will include infectious disease, chronic disease and injury, environmental health, nutrition, mental health, global public health organizations, economics, the impact of culture and religion on health ethics, public health in special populations and humanitarian emergencies.” This course dissected various types of non-profit organizations and provided valuable insight. It proportioned me with a basis for the evaluation of international markets as well as some of the preparation and psychological techniques used to market products and services. During the course we were divided into teams and assigned a health problem within a specific country. Our assignment was to create a solution using the content learned including our methods of implementation. Cultural, political and environmental conditions were all key elements that were evaluated.

 

Many non-profit organizations were evaluated during the course and their various representatives were invited as guest speakers. They shared the nature of the problem and their methods of solving it. There was one speaker that particularly impressed me. His tact for implementing his solution was impeccable and successfully abided cultural, political and environmental conditions. This suggests that minimally invasive solutions are not only applicable to medical devices, but to international NGOs as well. When a solution was implemented in such a manner the target population was much more likely to accept it. I interpreted this to be a solution made intuitive to its target audience. I determined that if I was going to be able to create an application to improve the process of innovation it would need to be intuitive so as to make it seamless. This means utilizing the target population’s current culture and behaviors as a means of adaptation rather than attempting to change their behavior. This ultimately addresses the acceptance of a product or solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was another speaker that impressed me, not for the program that he presented, but for a characteristic he possessed, humility. He was a representative from one of the Moran Eye Center’s international outreach programs. During his presentation he kept us actively involved and asked us for our feedback and suggestions. This was the first time that I saw a presenter involve us in such a manner. I realized that he had the humility and understanding to value the fact that critical solutions can come from anywhere regardless of someone’s age or experience. Afterwards I enjoyed further conversation with him and witnessed that the type of openness and collaboration that he engaged in had great value in the process of innovation.

 

Throughout the course I gained valuable insight and found that the course content applied to the acceptance of an innovation. I determined that the conception of innovation without its subsequent acceptance by the target audience renders it useless and halts the process. In addition I witnessed that external openness resulted in a potentially powerful form of collaboration for solutions.

 

 

Foundry

The Foundry at the University of Utah defines itself as a "...business accelerator educational program funded and supported by the University of Utah, David Eccles School of Business. We created the Foundry to accelerate regional economic growth through the development of principled, lifelong, entrepreneurial leaders." The Foundry forms cohorts of entrepreneurs and is directed toward developing the entrepreneur rather than the business that that is being constructed. From the ideation stage to the expansion stage members of the Foundry are encouraged to work as a team capitalizing on peer feedback and focusing on accountability through effective project management and documentation. I worked on a business idea called KeepitsicK that was designed to connect liberal artists with their audiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I participated in the F4 cohort of the Foundry in which we held weekly Monday morning meetings per a majority vote. The purpose of our meetings was to share problems that we encountered with our projects. The cohort effectively used peer mentorship to help resolve these problems. While participating in the cohort I found that many of the other dedicated cohort members were past the ideation phase and were actively entering or progressing in their markets. Much of the helpful information shared amongst the other entrepreneurs was not immediately pertinent to my idea. After more thorough conception of my prototype needs I found myself continually bumping into barriers in attempt to satisfy them. One of such barriers was my inability to gain skilled team members, in particular a developer interested in equity. The ones that I met with told me that they were deterred from such ventures due to the effect of current economic conditions on their career. I presented my dilemma to my cohort and was presented with genial advice, “learn to code and develop it yourself.” This particular member had directed me to a book and program to help me learn. That was the most valuable advice that I received during my membership. I learned to code HTML and CSS in addition to other language elements that I needed in order to develop a core design. His suggestion aided me further as I developed as an entrepreneur. I realized that many of the skills that I needed I could develop myself. While I enjoyed doing so I couldn’t help but acknowledge what level of time investment it required for an idea that I wasn’t even sure had a place in the market. There was so much basic education that I lacked as an entrepreneur. Eventually I recognized what extremes are expected from the average entrepreneur. I determined it to be immense and excessive. It is this realization that let me to address the process of innovation itself.

 

From the helpful feedback that I obtained from my peers I came to better understand the value of diverse sources of feedback. The diversity of experiences, perceptions and backgrounds allowed them to provide unique solutions even though we were all different  and working on very different projects. I saw this as a critical aspect for effectively generating and addressing solutions during the process of innovation. This is another key element that I have worked into my P^3 solution.

 

During my experience in the foundry I recognized the value of peer feedback within the business development process and the immense potential it has within the grand scheme of community based innovation. This suggests a hindering effect that isolation has on the process of innovation, which in turn yields a limited perception that proportionally limits the creation of innovative solutions.  I also gained a better idea of the demands placed on the average entrepreneur.

 

 

Grow America Springboard™

The Grow America Springboard™ competition awarded money for the best business idea presented within each of three different phases. I participated in the ideation phase competition. The first round of the idea phase competition required several fields of documentation requesting information specific to not only the business plan and culture, but the entrepreneur as well. Round 2 involved a video submission that would embody the vision of the entrepreneur to sell the judges on. All the while mentors were at my disposal for assistance and advice throughout the process. I entered the same business idea that I had developed during my participation in the Foundry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The importance of networking became increasingly emphasized as I progressed as an entrepreneur. Participating in the springboard competition proportioned additional networking opportunities. Mentorship was offered freely during these networking periods. My selected mentor helped me greatly through the competition. I needed help with a lot of new business terms and ideas that were presented in the fields of required submissions. They involved many types of projections and market analyses that I had not heard of prior. It was difficult to define and distinguish between a lot of the questions and information that was requested. I was a chemistry student with no formal business education and my network was mostly limited to other students of the hard sciences with no interest in business. The team that I assembled while in the Foundry had no pertinent skills and was intimidated by these types of questions, as it seemed that many aspiring entrepreneurs would be. This experience developed my ability to portray my business plan literarily, but still I wondered how else I would have otherwise become aware of the existence of the topics that were addressed in the competition? My lack of education impaired my ability to compete. I wondered how many others were under the impression that a significant amount of education in entrepreneurship is not required to take an idea to market.

Another element that I found to be significant was understanding the mentality of typical funding sources. The target audience of my idea was very different from the type of people that composed the board of judges. I had to learn to adjust not only the type of speech, but also the technique of presentation. In order to appeal to a diverse panel of older judges I needed to learn what their interests were and how to appeal to them. This aspect of funding acquisition is yet another additional step of the process of innovation. I was happy to learn and did my best to figure things out, but I still ruminated on the thought that if I could fund myself I would be able to skip this step entirely. I asked myself if there was another way of skipping this step or at least making it easier for people like me.

 

My participation in the competition was ideal for learning how to better communicate business proposals literarily. This experience also offered new insight as to the interests of funding sources. Understanding their mentality is important in overcoming the barriers encountered during the funding acquisition portion of the process of innovation and inspired me to think of ways that it might be facilitated.

 

 

UROP

 The Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) 2013 explains on their main web page that the program “…provides undergraduate students and faculty members the opportunity to work together on research or creative projects.” The Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program provides students with several resources including funding, publishing, and symposium presentation opportunities. UROP not only allows for the conjoined efforts of students and faculty-managed research, but also supports students managing their own proposed research. I proposed my own research and have been required to provide various documentation including proposals and an abstract. These forms are reviewed and judged as scientific articles. This offered further experience in the creation of literature that successfully communicates project details and objectives. The research that I proposed titled Reconceiving the Process of Innovation for a new age: P^3 was submitted with the intent to create a successful implementation of my conceived process of innovation. I have participated in UROP for two semesters. During the first semester I performed market research to evaluate the uniqueness of the idea and to identify competitors. Competitor products were also examined in order to identify potential attributes to adopt for my implementation. The second semester has been spent designing and ascertaining prototype requirements followed by the creation of a business plan. This project is intended to be a direct solution to my problem "The current rate of innovation is low considering available resources."                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During my progression as an entrepreneur I continued to reflect upon the questions that I had posed from my experiences. Questions like how can this process be streamlined for them [aspiring entrepreneurs] when they have no prior experience or knowledge of the potential dangers in engaging the patenting process? How could they collaborate in a more open fashion to inspire and share resources? How could the process of innovation be manipulated to direct them intuitively through the process or even without being aware? These questions led me to reconceive the process of innovation as a more streamlined process centered on accessibility which I titled “Innovation Chiasm.” It looked ideal as a theory but I needed to develop an application through which to implement it. I determined that student innovators were a great target audience to begin with and sketched a design for a web application that would effectively cater to them. Only positive feedback and additional resources followed.

 

Faculty mentorship was required to apply for the assistantship of which I found great support at the Marriot Library business and finance department. Through my research I found that there was in fact a need for my product and proceeded to code its design. I progressed to the preparation of a business plan and was introduced to many new items. With the help of mentors and other supporting entities I continue to develop the remainder of my plan. I have identified funding sources and plan to begin prototype development at the end of the year.

 

UROP provided me with resources and mentorship that have supported the development of P^3. This is the vehicle by which I am currently addressing my problem "The current rate of innovation is low considering available resources." Through the assistantship of UROP I was able to dedicate more time to my project granting me my current level of progress.

 

 

Remarks

The insight that I received from the listed courses and engagements allowed me to identify key elements of a suitable solution that I subsequently attempted to incorporate into an application that I began to develop called P^3. These experiences have provided me with indispensible means for addressing my problem and have been a valuable part of my development. They have proportioned knowledge and action that together with further analysis and execution will permit me future success, for action without knowledge is inefficient and knowledge without action is latent.