DEEP TECH
INDEPENDENT PROGRAMME
EVALUATION & DESIGN
Know what to
renew, redesign or stop.
Technology policy, innovation programmes and portfolios need evidence of real outcomes before renewal, redesign or funding.
I independently test the KPIs, selection criteria, incentives and delivery structure behind that decision.
You receive a clear written basis for what to retain, redesign or stop – defensible to boards, funders and public stakeholders.
One decision in 2–3 weeks.
Innovation Initiative Evaluation & Design:
From Activity to Programme Impact
Your next mandate, funding period or board review is approaching. You can show activity
– but not yet which interventions are changing outcomes.
I INVESTIGATE How programme design, venture selection, incentives, support and founder behaviour connect to the outcomes being claimed.
YOU CAN DECIDE What to renew, redesign, scale or stop – and the evidence required to defend that decision.
Your deep tech startups portfolio keeps consuming capital, but it is difficult to distinguish
temporary friction from ventures whose route to market is structurally blocked.
I INVESTIGATE How technical readiness, market demand, regulation, adoption, capital requirements, team capacity and timing constrain one another.
YOU CAN DECIDE Which ventures merit more time and capital, which need a different route to market, and which should be stopped before further investment.
You want the strongest ventures, but credible business builders bypass the programme
– or take the funding without valuing the support. Competing offers look largely interchangeable.
I INVESTIGATE How the proposition, selection model, incentives, expertise, funding and assumed scaling route influence who joins and what the programme actually changes.
YOU CAN DECIDE A differentiated offer that stronger ventures choose for reasons beyond free support or grant access.
The evaluation is complete and the recommendation is on paper.
But implementation stalls between organisations, decision owners and reporting cycles.
I INVESTIGATE Which dependencies, decision rights, evidence gates and responsibilities must align for the recommendation to work in practice.
YOU CAN DECIDE A sequence that existing teams can implement: who decides what, what happens next and what must become true before further commitment.
INAM:
what the KPIs incentivize
“Arise Innovations conducted an analysis of our Advanced Materials Competition accelerator programme that helped identify a previously unclear bottleneck: how our KPI architecture shapes venture behavior – and where that creates mid-term risk. This is a different layer and quality of input than operational feedback and gave us a concrete basis to rethink what we actually want to incentivize. We recommend Arise Innovations to any programme operator or ecosystem that wants to understand if their current structure is built to produce the desired outcomes - not just how well it is being executed.”
– Oliver Hasse, Innovation Network for Advanced Materials
Evaluate, Design & Fund Lab-to-Market Initiatives
1
Decision Review
Identify the binding constraint, test the evidence and set explicit conditions to continue, change or stop. For programme leaders, funders and institutional sponsors.
For one consequential decision that cannot safely be made on current evidence.
You receive:
→ an independent assessment of the decision
→ the binding constraint and material evidence gaps
→ explicit conditions to continue, change or stop
→ a 3–5 page executive decision brief
Process: Document review, up to three stakeholder conversations, written assessment and leadership readout. Timeline: 2–3 weeks.
Portfolio Diagnostic
Examine selection, support, evidence and progression logic; identify structural gaps and redesign priorities before the next funding or programme cycle.
For programme or portfolio leaders who need to decide what to retain, change or stop before the next cycle.
You receive:
→ assessment of selection, support and progression logic
→ identification of structural gaps and portfolio risks
→ prioritised recommendations
→ a 10–12 page diagnostic and executive decision brief
Process: Evidence review, selected stakeholder interviews, portfolio analysis and leadership readout. Timeline: 4–6 weeks.
2
3
Infrastructure Setup
Define evidence standards, review gates and decision records that help teams allocate support and capital consistently across a programme or portfolio.
For institutions that want to embed consistent decision quality across a programme or portfolio.
You receive:
→ evidence standards and decision gates
→ renewal, escalation and exit conditions
→ decision records and governance routines
→ implementation guidance for internal teams
Process: Scoped from an existing diagnostic or a defined institutional decision problem.
Timeline: 8–12 weeks
Problems solved
How my work contributes to faster and more confident decision-making
in science commercialisation.
Commercial breadth and customer qualification
The initial problem: Which revenue opportunities should lead the financing story? Founders treated equipment sales, processing and development services as diversification around one platform. The underlying problem identified: The commercial plan was committing cash before establishing a deliverable, qualified offer that could generate receipts in time. Critical interaction: Custom development consumes the engineers needed for customer qualification, while expansion spending shortens the runway available to complete it. Decision conditions: Confirm buyer acceptance requirements, engineering availability, delivery capability and funding through qualification. Recommendation: Stage expansion around a bounded core offer; release broader commitments only when its qualification and financing path is credible. QUATISE value: Make an unaffordable commercial sequence visible before capital is committed, and focus resources on reaching the first qualified sale.