There is something fascinating about spending time with deep-tech founders. You quickly discover just how many extraordinarily clever people, are working on problems most of us don’t even know exist, let alone understand how to solve.
Over the past few months, I’ve found myself immersed in conversations about artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, circular electronics and marine technology. Some have taken me so far beyond my own technical knowledge, that I have occasionally wondered whether paying more attention in science class might have helped!
What never fails to impress me is the ingenuity, determination and sheer persistence behind these innovations. Many represent years of research, experimentation and setbacks, driven by founders who genuinely believe they can change the way something works, and in many cases they most probably can.
But there’s a moment in many of our workshops when the conversation takes an interesting turn.
The founder has explained the technology, demonstrated what it can do, and outlined an enormous market opportunity. There may be a working prototype, grant funding, accelerator recognition, and even a successful pilot. Everything sounds promising, and the enthusiasm is often infectious.
Then I ask what happens next…
Who is going to buy it? What would convince them to change how they currently operate? And what evidence do we have that they’re prepared to do so?
Suddenly, the conversation becomes rather more complicated.
It’s not that the founders haven’t thought about commercialisation, most have. But there’s often a considerable distance between understanding the potential applications of a technology, and knowing how to turn that potential into a business someone is willing to invest in, adopt or buy from.
And that’s the uncomfortable reality: developing a remarkable technology and building a commercially viable business are two very different achievements.
In my previous articles, I explored the first two questions I regularly ask founders: What problem are you solving? and Who exactly has that problem?
The third question takes us into territory that is often considerably harder to navigate: What evidence do you have that someone is ready to buy your solution?
It’s a question that can be particularly challenging in deep tech, where years of development may be required before a product is ready for commercial deployment. I certainly don’t expect every early-stage startup to arrive with paying customers. But I do expect founders to understand the difference between proving that their technology works, and demonstrating that a market is willing to adopt it.
Consider a manufacturer being introduced to a technology that promises greater efficiency, lower costs or reduced waste. From the founder’s perspective, the benefits may seem obvious. From the manufacturer’s perspective, adopting that technology could mean disrupting production, retraining staff, changing established processes or taking responsibility for something that hasn’t yet been proven in their environment.
The founder is selling the promise of a better future, and the customer is weighing up the risks of changing the present.
This is where many promising innovations get stuck.
We have become very good at celebrating startup milestones. Grants, prototypes, accelerator programmes, partnerships and pilots all demonstrate progress, and rightly so. But somewhere along the way, we risk treating these achievements as interchangeable with commercial traction.
They aren’t.
A grant validates a funding decision, a prototype demonstrates technical progress and a pilot may prove that something works under certain conditions. None automatically tells us whether a customer will pay for it, adopt it at scale or recommend it to someone else.
I have also noticed how quickly an exciting technology can become an opportunity for almost every industry imaginable. Manufacturing, healthcare, agriculture, maritime, energy. The list grows, the market opportunity becomes enormous and the founder understandably gets excited.
But every new market brings different customers, budgets, regulations, buying processes and reasons to say no. Sometimes the most commercially intelligent decision a founder can make is not identifying another application for their technology, but choosing which opportunity to pursue first.
This is where the conversation in our workshops becomes less about what the technology could do and more about what the business needs to prove.
A pilot should answer a commercial question, not simply demonstrate technical capability. Customer conversations should reveal what would make someone change their behaviour, not just whether they find the innovation interesting. Market selection should be guided by where there is a realistic path to adoption, rather than where the largest theoretical opportunity exists.
None of this diminishes the importance of scientific innovation, in fact it’s quite the opposite. If we’re serious about helping breakthrough technologies reach the market, we need to give their commercial development the same attention, curiosity and discipline that goes into building them.
I have met very few founders who lack belief in their technology. What they sometimes lack is enough evidence about the world waiting outside the laboratory.
That brings me back to the third question: Your technology works, but what have you actually proven about the business?
It’s a distinction worth making long before the investor pitch, because the market doesn’t reward innovation simply for being impressive.
It rewards solutions that people are willing and able to adopt, and sometimes, getting someone to change what they’ve always done, is a considerably bigger challenge than inventing something new.
