Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze?

Medtech companies rarely struggle to generate ideas. The real test is not technical feasibility but proving that the anticipated clinical and commercial impact justifies the resources required to bring them to market.

The next step is to identify which opportunities merit continued investment and have a clear path to adoption. If an idea cannot produce a relevant, measurable return, it may remain an invention rather than become a viable innovation.

For healthcare partners, that return can take many forms:

· Better clinical outcomes

· Lower costs or reduced risks

· More efficient workflows

· Greater capacity or broader access

Whatever the benefit, the case must resonate with the people who approve, purchase, and ultimately use the product.

At Inneo Lab, we operate at this intersection. Through our member health systems, we engage frontline physicians, nurses, and other clinical subject matter experts to evaluate whether a problem is real in practice and whether the proposed solution fits the realities of care delivery. We then translate those insights into clear product requirements, buyer expectations, and market readiness.

In this roundtable, we asked three commercialization leaders to examine where medtech companies most often lose the connection between innovation and commercial value.

1) Define the Return Before Funding the Work

A strong ROI hypothesis doesn’t promise a financial result before evidence exists. It clarifies the customer value the product is expected to create, how that value will be measured, and what the team must learn before committing to the next stage of development capital.

Nishi Viswanathan | VP, Product Management and Commercialization

Should every medtech development program begin with an ROI hypothesis?

Nishi: I think it absolutely should, but ROI is much broader than “does this save the hospital money?” Before we start building, I want to know what gets meaningfully better if this product succeeds, for whom, and whether that improvement is important enough to change both clinician behavior and spending. Maybe the return is fewer complications, ten minutes of OR time saved per procedure, freeing up a nurse, avoiding an ICU day, increasing capacity, or making something possible in a lower-acuity setting.

The hypothesis part is important because you do not need all the answers on day one. You do need to agree on what you are trying to prove. Otherwise, it’s easy to spend a lot of money proving you can build something before anyone has proved it is worth building. In medtech, technical feasibility is often the (slightly) easier question. Value feasibility is the one that kills you later!

What proof transforms an interesting technology into a defensible case for adoption?

Nishi: A product can have great clinical data and still fail commercially if it adds three workflow steps, requires an IT integration nobody wants to do, or solves a problem the clinician cares about but the buyer does not budget for. I want to see the pieces come together: does it work, does it fit into care delivery, does it create enough value, and can someone realistically implement and buy it?

And the value story cannot be identical for everybody. The physician may care about outcomes, the nurse about workflow, the CFO about cost or capacity, and supply chain about implementation and price. If the only person who loves your value proposition is the person using the device, you may still have a problem.

What evidence would you expect to see before approving the next stage of investment?

Nishi: I would ask a very simple question: What did we need to learn with the last dollar we spent, and did we learn enough to justify spending the next one?

I am not looking for all uncertainty to disappear, because that would mean we waited far too long. I am looking for the biggest risks to be getting smaller. Have we confirmed that the problem is frequent and consequential? Are clinicians asking for the solution rather than politely telling us it is “cool”? Can we identify who buys it and why? Is the expected value credible at a realistic price? And have we uncovered a fatal workflow, regulatory, technical, or reimbursement issue?

Sometimes the best outcome of a development stage is permission to keep going. Sometimes it is permission to change direction. And occasionally, the most valuable answer is “stop.” Killing a weak opportunity early is not a failed innovation program; it is good portfolio management.

Customer enthusiasm is not the same as purchasing intent.

2) Choose a Problem Worth Changing

Strong product portfolios test whether a problem is frequent, consequential, and important to the people who experience it, pay for it, and must change their behavior to adopt a solution.

That work should happen before the company becomes locked into a design or market narrative.

Dae Capobianco | Senior Product Manager

How do you distinguish a true unmet need from a frustrating problem that is not valuable enough to drive adoption?

Dae: I start by assessing whether the problem is significant enough to justify solving.

I consider the potential market size, the value a solution could bring, and whether there’s enough commercial opportunity to attract interest from a company or investor.

A big part of my process is interviewing the right stakeholders across the care pathway to validate that the unmet need exists, understand the impact of leaving it unresolved, and determine whether current solutions are inadequate. I also look at reimbursement and hospital economics to understand whether solving the problem creates enough financial incentive to motivate buyer interest.

To assess the likelihood of adoption, I try to understand what would motivate stakeholders to move away from their current solutions and what evidence they would need to make that decision. Would bench testing or a whitepaper be sufficient, or would clinical trial data be necessary? This helps me determine whether the value of solving the problem is compelling enough to justify the cost, effort, and potential barriers associated with bringing a new product to market.

 

What warning sign tells you that positive feedback is unlikely to translate into purchasing behavior?

Dae: One warning sign I look for is when clinicians acknowledge that a problem exists, but current solutions are considered good enough that there isn’t strong motivation to change or invest in something new.

For example, we recently evaluated a prosthetic socket concept designed to address residual-limb volume fluctuations. Through clinician interviews, we validated that the problem was real, but we also learned that existing solutions adequately addressed many patients’ needs. That was an important signal that positive clinical feedback wouldn’t necessarily translate into adoption.

This is why I think it’s important to go beyond asking whether someone likes a concept and understand what limitations they’re experiencing with current solutions and whether addressing those gaps would actually motivate a purchasing decision.

When should a team change course because the market is not ready or the commercial strategy is misaligned?

Dae: I think a team should consider changing course when market feedback consistently shows that the opportunity isn’t strong enough to justify the investment required to bring a product to market. At that point, I consider adjusting the use case or product requirements to try to create a stronger commercial opportunity, but if those changes still don’t address the underlying barriers, then it’s time to stop.

Returning to the prosthetic socket example, we found that the remaining unmet need was narrow, and addressing it would require substantial technical development and add complexity for clinicians. We also could not identify a clear reimbursement pathway to support adoption.

Ultimately, we determined that the commercial opportunity wasn’t strong enough to justify further development. I think it’s important to recognize when the market evidence doesn’t support the concept rather than continuing to invest in a solution simply because the clinical problem is real.

3) Choose a Partner That Connects Development to Adoption

Validating need and value reduces risk, but it does not guarantee adoption. Turning a promising opportunity into a commercially viable product requires the right combination of clinical access, product development capability, and commercialization discipline.

Many organizations can build to specification. Fewer can help determine whether the right product is also the right fit and whether adoption is realistic.

Jace Langen | Business Development & Partnerships Manager

What do you look for in an ideal industry partner?

Jace: An ideal partner can bring many things, but we look for strong alignment, complementary expertise, and a shared commitment to the outcome. The best partners are realistic about what it takes to bring a medical product to market and understand the complexities of working with clinicians, engineers, and hospitals. They are willing to challenge assumptions and be challenged themselves. During product development and commercialization, the evidence may point in a different direction than originally expected. A strong partner is willing to adapt the product, use case, or commercialization strategy when clinical or market feedback supports that change.

What should an industry partner provide beyond product development capabilities?

Jace: Building the product is only a small part of commercial success.

Even a technically strong device can struggle if it doesn’t match clinical workflows, isn’t tied to a meaningful need, doesn’t meet buying requirements, or doesn’t deliver enough value to drive adoption.

A strong partner connects product development with commercial reality. For us, that means combining engineering, product management, and commercialization expertise with access to clinicians across our member systems.

What challenges commonly arise in strategic partnerships, and how do you address them?

Jace: Many partnership challenges stem from misalignment. Common examples include unclear objectives, differing expectations about roles and responsibilities, slow decision-making, changing scope, intellectual property, and different definitions of success. The best way to address these issues is to establish alignment early. Both organizations need to align objectives, responsibilities, expectations, communication, and outcomes. If alignment and expectations are set early, it can lead to a productive partnership where issues can be raised early andovercome.

 

 Closing: Innovation Is Proven Through Adoption

A medtech pipeline should be evaluated on whether it addresses a consequential need, creates measurable customer value, and supports a viable commercial model. That requires:

• A clear value hypothesis
• Defined evidence milestones
• A disciplined decision process for whether to continue, redirect, or stop

Clinical performance remains essential, but adoption depends on workflow fit, stakeholder alignment, implementation requirements, and a value story that directly answers buyer priorities.

The economic case and commercialization strategy should develop alongside the product, not after late-stage discovery makes change costly.

Inneo Lab helps industry partners evaluate these assumptions through access to frontline clinical subject matter experts across our member health systems. Our product management and commercialization expertise then translates insights into clearer product requirements, evidence priorities, and adoption strategies before the hard decisions arrive.

Ready to advance healthcare solutions and explore collaboration opportunities with Inneo Lab? 
Contact: Nishi Viswanathan at Lab@Inneo.Health