Instrument I · Research-to-Application

Research to Application
Decision Tool

Six steps. One recommendation. Before you commit anything irreversible.

1 · Problem
2 · Evidence
3 · Market
4 · Friction
5 · Founder
6 · Capital
Step 1 of 6 · Problem Layer
How would you describe the commercial problem your research addresses?
This is Layer 1 of the Five Failure Layers. Be honest — many important scientific problems are not urgent commercial problems today.
Urgent, funded pain — buyers are actively spending to solve this today
You have spoken with potential buyers who confirm this is a live budget priority, not a future aspiration
Real problem, but urgency is unclear — buyers acknowledge it but aren't actively spending
The problem exists but may not be felt urgently enough to trigger a purchasing decision today
Future problem — important but not yet a felt pain in the market
You are anticipating a problem that will matter in 3–5 years but is not actively funded today
Scientific problem — significant in academic terms but I have not yet validated commercial demand
The research solves an important scientific question; commercial application is hypothetical at this stage
Step 2 of 6 · Evidence of Demand
How much direct evidence of buyer demand do you currently have?
Not academic citations. Not logical inference. Direct conversations with people who would be the buyer.
20+ customer interviews completed — urgency, budget authority, and decision process confirmed
CRL 2 reached. You have validated the pain with evidence, not assumption.
5–19 conversations — some validation but not yet systematic
Encouraging signals but insufficient to confirm the pattern is general, not anecdotal
Fewer than 5 conversations — or conversations with researchers/academics rather than buyers
Early stage. The pattern of demand is not yet established.
No direct buyer conversations yet — demand is inferred from literature or logical reasoning
CRL 1. Commercial viability has not been tested against real buyers.
Step 3 of 6 · Market Structure
How would you describe the market structure for your technology?
The structure of the market determines N_legacy and τ_cycle before any other variable is assessed.
A single customer can adopt and derive full value independently — no ecosystem dependency
The technology works for one buyer without requiring anyone else to change their behaviour or systems
Value requires 2–3 parties to change (e.g. buyer + their supplier, or buyer + regulator)
Moderate ecosystem dependency. N_legacy multiplies with each required party.
Network effect required — value grows only with scale of adoption across many parties
High N_legacy. Maximum τ_cycle. Requires ecosystem strategy, not startup strategy alone.
Regulated market — government, healthcare, aviation, nuclear, financial services
Regulatory approval is a prerequisite. N_legacy is structural. τ_cycle is 3–7 years minimum. Path A or C is likely optimal.
Step 4 of 6 · Friction Profile
Rate the likely Innovation Friction for your primary target customer
Score 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) for each variable based on your best current assessment.
μ_humanHuman Resistance
1 · Very Low5 · Very High
3
N_legacyLegacy Systems Weight
1 · Very Low5 · Very High
3
τ_cycleSales Cycle Length
1 · Weeks5 · Years
3
C_capitalCapital Required
1 · <€500K5 · >€10M
3
Step 5 of 6 · Founder Readiness
Which best describes your current situation and appetite?
This is not about enthusiasm. It is about capacity, risk tolerance, and the honest gap between where you are and what each path requires.
I want to lead a company — I am ready to commit fully and build the commercial system myself
Path B. You accept the founder role, including sales, hiring, investor management, and commercial execution alongside the technical work.
I want the technology to reach impact — I am open to the path that maximises adoption probability
All three paths are in scope. You will choose the vehicle that maximises P(adoption), not the one that maximises founder status.
I want to remain in research — commercialisation should happen alongside or with minimal disruption to my scientific work
Path A or C. Licensing, publishing, or a corporate venture partner preserves your research trajectory while enabling adoption.
I am unsure — I need to understand the full implications of each path before deciding
Complete this instrument first, then use Instrument II (Pre-Commitment Canvas) before making any commitment.
Step 6 of 6 · Capital and Timeline
What is your current capital position and target market size?
TAM >€1B reachable in 7 years · Capital available or access to raise €500K+ within 6 months
Venture-scale opportunity with fundable foundation. Path B is viable if friction profile supports it.
TAM €100M–€1B · Limited capital; likely grant-funded or bootstrapped for 12–18 months
Smaller market or constrained capital may indicate Path A or C is more capital-efficient than a standalone startup.
TAM <€100M or highly specialised niche · No capital plan beyond current grants
Path A (License/Partner) is likely the highest-P(adoption) path. Venture economics do not fit this profile.
TAM unknown — I have not yet sized the addressable market rigorously
Market sizing is a prerequisite for vehicle selection. Complete this before choosing a path.
Your Innovation Friction Assessment · Instrument I Output
Innovation Friction Profile — Your Assessment
Next Step

If your recommendation is Path B, proceed to Instrument II — Pre-Commitment Canvas before committing any capital or making any irreversible decisions. Instrument I gives you direction. Instrument II gives you the rigorous pre-flight check.