TTS’s learnings after supporting 42+ deep-tech projects

Technology Translation Squad

The Technology Translation Squad (TTS) is one of our 15 TRaCE initiatives that provides practical engineering support to organisations developing decarbonisation and electrification technologies. Since 2024, they have supported more than 42 deep-tech projects and, through this work, identified recurring technical challenges and commercial pressures that can affect a technology’s pathway from concept to commercialisation. They are sharing these lessons to contribute to the broader discussion about how the interplay between technical readiness and investment pressure shapes longer-term outcomes, particularly for start-ups.

What we’ve learned after working with 42+ deep-tech decarbonisation and electrification projects

Australia has an ecosystem capable of supporting deep-tech start-ups, with funding available from founders themselves, angel investors, government grants, accelerators and venture capital firms. However, our experience at TTS suggests that the challenge is often whether the right funding is available at the right time and in a form that supports the technical development required.

This is particularly evident in deep-tech. Universities in Australia receive significant funding for research but there is generally less funding available to take promising technologies through the development stages that follow. It can also be difficult to spin out a deep-tech company before it reaches approximately Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 i.e. when a prototype or representative system has been demonstrated in a relevant environment. While angel investors and other early-stage funders may provide smaller amounts of capital earlier in the development process, significant capital investment before TRL 6 can carry significant technical development risk, particularly when a deep technical expert has not performed due diligence on the technology to determine the feasibility and optimal technology development pathway. This can create a gap between developing a promising concept and reaching the level of technical maturity needed to attract substantial investment.

Founders are therefore often required to bootstrap development using their own capital, smaller government grants, small angel investments or accelerator seed funding while progressing their technology up the TRL chain. However, many do not have the technical expertise required to assess the full engineering challenge. They may be non-technical founders, or their expertise may not cover the interdisciplinary nature of the system they are developing. The same issue can apply to university researchers who have developed a promising technical solution but have not yet fully established the commercial problem their product should solve.

This is where the crux of the problem lies: technologies can receive enough funding to progress but not always the right technical support or sufficiently sustained funding to perform technology development from TRL 2 – 3 to a stage where large capital investment can be unlocked. Our findings also suggest that the investment ecosystem needs a stronger appreciation of the role technical rigour plays in de-risking innovation.

Rigid, linear processes are unlikely to provide the answer. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on ensuring that technical feasibility is assessed rigorously by relevant experts early, ideally before any investment is committed from an angel, government grant or accelerator, and definitely before serious capital investment is made. An early feasibility study from a relevant expert can establish the basis for a more focused proof of concept, which can then be refined through multiple iterations before the technology is deployed as a commercial product.

This approach would not necessarily slow innovation – it could help direct funding more effectively, reduce avoidable technical risks and give start-ups a stronger foundation on which to build and grow.

Pressure to commercialise: moving from concept to deployment and back again

The urgency associated with decarbonisation and electrification creates understandable pressure to produce commercial results. Investors and funding organisations want to see progress, commercial trials and pathways to revenue. Start-ups, in turn, need to demonstrate momentum to secure the next stage of investment.

This pressure is particularly difficult for deep-tech projects because substantial investment can be difficult to secure before a technology reaches TRL 6 while there is often an investor preference for technologies that appear close to market (approximately TRL 9). However, technologies at an earlier stage still need to progress through the intervening steps. A technology at approximately TRL 2 or 3, where it is still at the concept or proof-of-concept stage, cannot simply jump to TRL 9 without the design development, testing, iteration and validation required in between.

Additionally, in our experience, projects can sometimes move towards proof of concept or deployment before a technical expert has fully assessed the underlying technology. Once problems emerge in the field, the project may need to take several steps backwards to modify the core design, repeat testing or address issues that should have been identified earlier. The result is not necessarily a faster time to market; it can instead lead to redesign, repeated testing and field-based troubleshooting. This then creates a cycle in which products are deployed prematurely, problems are discovered in real-world conditions and additional time is then required to correct them. The technology may eventually progress, but the pathway is more expensive and less efficient than it would have been if the development steps had occurred in the appropriate order.

This raises questions about how funding and investment are allocated. A better understanding of a technology’s maturity, technical risks and remaining validation requirements could help ensure that funding is directed towards the work needed to move the project forward, rather than towards deployment before the technology is ready.

Engineering gaps: going “under the hood”

TTS often becomes involved after a product roadmap is already partly established. By this stage, many founders have already made important decisions about the technical direction of their product, despite not yet having established whether the underlying technology is feasible.

This means that technical validation can occur after important product and technical decisions have already been made. In some cases, the key engineering questions have not yet been answered, while in others, validation has been treated as something that can be undertaken later in the process.

When TTS becomes involved, the work may therefore include feasibility studies or proof-of-concept development to investigate what is happening “under the hood”. This can require the founder to reconsider or substantially adjust the proposed technical pathway where course-correcting at this stage is not always straightforward. Founders understandably develop strong beliefs about their technology and the direction in which it should progress. Once a roadmap has been established, changing direction can be difficult particularly when significant time, effort and personal commitment have already been invested in the original idea.

Standards, regulations and certification requirements are another area that can be overlooked early in the development process. Some products are delayed, significantly redesigned or halted altogether because regulatory requirements have not been considered from the outset, or because the technology does not satisfy fundamental safety or operational requirements.

These issues illustrate the importance of engaging appropriate technical expertise before a product and technology roadmap become too established. Early technical input can help identify whether an idea is feasible, what risks need to be addressed, and which development pathway is most appropriate.

What it really takes to develop deep-tech solutions

A key lesson has been that the amount of engineering work required to develop deep-tech solutions is often underestimated. This is particularly evident in electrical engineering, where the work is not always physically visible or intuitive and often requires input from several engineering disciplines.  

This can be challenging for non-technical founders or for founders whose expertise does not cover the full interdisciplinary nature of the system they are developing. Although these electrification projects may initially be viewed primarily as electrical challenges, their successful development can depend on coordinated input from mechanical, chemical and structural engineers. In some projects, TTS has found that input from multiple disciplines is needed before the electrical engineering work can be completed accurately and efficiently.

We have also seen how excitement around technologies such as digital twins and AI can distract from the foundational work required to develop the product itself. In some cases, AI has been incorporated into a proposed product before the underlying technology has been properly developed or validated. In other cases, AI has been used to prepare briefing materials that can make the technology appear more technically mature than it is. It can also give investors a misleading impression of the founder’s technical understanding, potentially resulting in funding being committed too early or on the basis of incomplete information.

We have worked on a wide range of projects since our inception in 2024 and this has shown us that more detailed triage is needed to understand the maturity of each project and where our support can make the greatest difference. We have also learned that soft skills are an important part of our work. Our engineers sometimes need to communicate difficult technical findings to clients who may already have strong views about their technology or the direction they want to take. Challenging those views can be difficult but it is an important part of providing objective technical advice.

Creating a more technically informed innovation ecosystem

Greater technical rigour is needed in the development and funding of hardware-based decarbonisation and electrification technologies. However, this does not mean introducing rigid processes that every start-up must follow.

Instead, there needs to be a better understanding within the investment ecosystem of the importance of technical validation from independent technical experts before significant funding is committed or a product enters deployment. Early technical input can help identify whether a technology is feasible, what challenges still need to be addressed and how much validation is required. This can help de-risk investment while also giving start-ups a stronger basis for developing their products.

The objective is not to slow innovation down. It is to ensure that start-ups are encouraged and supported to undertake the feasibility studies and proof-of-concepts needed to give their technology the best chance of long-term success.

Written by Tamara Adzic, Matthew Priestley and the TTS team.