Leishmaniasis: Case Study: Choice Of An Area Of Interest
4.2.2. Choice of an area of interest
Participants could achieve a satisfactory consensus about which neglected disease to prioritize after they saw the results of the concomitant construction of roadmaps. Based on the resultant maps, participants of all workshops were asked to individually write down which disease they would choose and why they would not choose the others. A total of 80% of 15 respondents chose Leishmaniasis. All the “generalists” (i.e. researchers involved with all four diseases, representing 46.67% of total) were included in this percentage, as well as many of the specialists in the other diseases. Moreover, in all six broad criteria derived from the answers (i.e. relevance to the market; technical considerations; installed capacity; structuring/integrating character; involvement of P3D team; opportunities for partnership), Leishmaniasis was the only disease which had many strong arguments in its favor (e.g. availability of human and technical resources for R&D in the institution; possibility of integration between experts from different areas) and just few – and weak – ones against it.
Based on the presentation of these results, …show more content…
Objective results depend on strong commitment to the actions delineated throughout the time by managers. Also, RMA is not designed to be a punctual experiment, but rather a discipline in the organizational environment. Meanwhile, since the main value of RMA may really come from the “roadmapping” rather than “the roadmap” itself (Albright et al., 2003), and in order to assess whether the designed RMA was considered able to satisfactorily support OI in P3D, SP group leaders were asked to answer a questionnaire. Due to its focus on the assessment of visualization practices in strategizing processes, Eppler and Platts’ (2009) questionnaire was used in an adapted version. Results are shown in Table
Participants could achieve a satisfactory consensus about which neglected disease to prioritize after they saw the results of the concomitant construction of roadmaps. Based on the resultant maps, participants of all workshops were asked to individually write down which disease they would choose and why they would not choose the others. A total of 80% of 15 respondents chose Leishmaniasis. All the “generalists” (i.e. researchers involved with all four diseases, representing 46.67% of total) were included in this percentage, as well as many of the specialists in the other diseases. Moreover, in all six broad criteria derived from the answers (i.e. relevance to the market; technical considerations; installed capacity; structuring/integrating character; involvement of P3D team; opportunities for partnership), Leishmaniasis was the only disease which had many strong arguments in its favor (e.g. availability of human and technical resources for R&D in the institution; possibility of integration between experts from different areas) and just few – and weak – ones against it.
Based on the presentation of these results, …show more content…
Objective results depend on strong commitment to the actions delineated throughout the time by managers. Also, RMA is not designed to be a punctual experiment, but rather a discipline in the organizational environment. Meanwhile, since the main value of RMA may really come from the “roadmapping” rather than “the roadmap” itself (Albright et al., 2003), and in order to assess whether the designed RMA was considered able to satisfactorily support OI in P3D, SP group leaders were asked to answer a questionnaire. Due to its focus on the assessment of visualization practices in strategizing processes, Eppler and Platts’ (2009) questionnaire was used in an adapted version. Results are shown in Table