DEEP TECH DECISION DE-RISKING
& COMMERCIALiSATION STRATEGY
Know what to prove for a viable commercial pathway.
Assess what needs to be true before your next high-stakes commitment.
Science commercialisation moves between components – evidence x market x industrialisation x capital – interacting over time. With progress, ventures must connect who will buy, how value is created and which route to market is credible.
I independently stress-test assumptions and dependencies behind the next move – so founders, board, investors, partners and team can act on the same basis.
One decision delivered in 2–3 weeks.
Scale Lab-to-Market:
What Is Too Expensive To Ignore
Customers are interested and pilots are running
– but pilots are not becoming repeatable revenue.
I INVESTIGATE How customer urgency, procurement, integration, pricing, regulation, delivery capacity and financing affect the route from interest to adoption.
YOU CAN DECIDE What is preventing conversion, which evidence customers still need and whether the commercial model can scale.
Every expert is convincing within their own domain
– technology, IP, regulation, sales, partnerships or finance –
but their recommendations do not add up to one executable strategy.
I INVESTIGATE The conflicts and dependencies between those recommendations, tested against the venture’s actual route to adoption and value.
YOU CAN DECIDE One decision logic: what matters now, what can wait and which action unlocks the next commercially relevant proof.
Another grant, programme, pilot, partnership or fundraising round could buy crucial resources
– but it is unclear where to invest now for it to eventually pay off.
I INVESTIGATE How each option affects commercial proof, capital requirements, control, timing and future constraints – not merely the next milestone.
YOU CAN DECIDE The next move most likely to change the trajectory, plus the evidence needed before committing scarce time and capital.
Several routes to market look plausible, but technology, customer adoption, IP, regulation, team and capital
cannot all advance at once. Which path should receive scarce resources first?
I INVESTIGATE How technical maturity, market demand, IP position, regulatory pathways, adoption requirements, team capacity and funding interact across viable market routes – and which dependency must be resolved first.
YOU CAN DECIDE Which market and route to pursue first, what to prove in what order, and where to commit, defer or stop scarce people and capital.
Commercialisation strategy
for science-based ventures
Capital Acquisition Strategy
For ventures that need to finance a research, validation, spinout or commercial transition without defaulting to the wrong capital.
You receive:
→ a map of suitable capital sources and their sequencing
→ venture-capital fit and viable funding opportunities
→ evidence and readiness gates for each financing step
→ alignment of technical, commercial and financing milestones
→ a written capital-acquisition strategy with leading narratives
Process: Document review, founder working session, capital pathway analysis and final readout.
Timeline: 2–3 weeks.
1
Venture Transition Review
For ventures or their funders that cannot safely make the next move on current assumptions.
You receive:
→ an independent assessment of the venture state and decision
→ the binding constraint and relevant evidence gaps
→ a comparison of credible product, market, partnership and capital routes
→ explicit conditions for the next commitment
→ a 3–5 page executive Venture Decision Brief
Process: Evidence review, up to three stakeholder conversations and decision readout.
Timeline: 4–6 weeks.
2
Venture Transition Architecture
For ventures that need to model product development, target market, buyer logic, pricing, adoption, partnerships and financing as one system.
You receive:
→ a commercial model covering first offer, beachhead, buying roles, adoption path and pricing
→ a 12–24 month integrated roadmap
technical, commercial and financing milestones
→ critical dependencies and evidence gates, route-to-market and partnership decision points
→ explicit conditions for investment, continuation or change
Process: Evidence review, targeted stakeholder interviews, architecture development and leadership workshop. Timeline: 8–12 weeks.
3
Decisions changed
A promising result can still lead to the wrong next commitment. The cases show how evidence, market requirements, industrialisation and capital interact over time – and how a gap between them can redirect commercialisation. Explore where QUATISE identifies the underlying dependency, reshapes the next decision and clarifies who can add value. Download a case to compare the unchanged route with a practical alternative, including stakeholder Go, Hold and No-Go implications.
ELECTROCHEMICAL MATERIALS
Qualify the material before committing to production scale
An electrode-material venture is preparing to scale production on the strength of promising laboratory results. Its prospective customer still needs proof that the material performs in an assembled device.
Underlying issue: Production, assembly access and customer qualification are being planned separately. A larger batch could consume resources without producing the evidence needed for the next commercial decision.
Risk reduction: QUATISE connects representative samples, repeat batches, assembly access and customer acceptance into one qualification package. Compared with scaling first, this sequence can expose an unsuitable route before a larger commitment and clarify what evidence would justify proceeding.