Skip to main content

Blog Innovate UK

Innovate UK
Innovate UK

Giving life to commercialisation

Posted by: , Posted on: - Categories: Support

Technology commercialisation is never simple and rarely linear, however it always requires some basic building blocks and a specific set of conditions to bring it to life.

Commercialisation springs from the primordial soup of an innovation ecosystem. Creating structured, mission focused partnerships we can optimise and re-energise the rich UK ecosystem.

building blocks in black and white

The Haldane conundrums

Ten years after Richard Haldane considered how to create the most effective research system for the UK, his nephew John Haldane theorised on a very different question, namely: where did we come from?

Richard Haldane conceived the Haldane Principle, creating a UK research system independent from political interference that has put UK research at the global forefront. In contrast, John Haldane focused his efforts on further developing the primordial soup theory in an article called The origin of life.

bowl of soup in black and white

The primordial soup theory

Four billion years ago there was no organic material and the atmosphere was very different, containing no oxygen however with a rich supply of hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water. The theory postulates that these elements combined to produce amino acids, creating the primordial soup from which complex organic material formed and subsequently gave rise to life.

This theoretical process (abiogenisis) requires a further critical ingredient: energy. Whilst there is debate around its source (lightning, ultraviolet light from the sun, deep-sea hydrothermal vents?), raw energy was a critical component.

Energy catalysed the combination of amino acids to create nucleic acids. Nucleic acids adapted and recombined to create life. Life gave rise to photosynthetic organisms with an interesting by-product: oxygen. With oxygen in the atmosphere life exploded, recycling key components in the process.

An elegant self-propagating system, one can argue not unlike the output of his uncle’s principle.

Black and white line drawn cash till

So, commercialisation?

It’s only a theory, but I believe a transposable theory to our challenges with commercialisation.

The innovation ecosystem needs a ready supply of key building blocks: a strong academic system, commercial skills, markets, money and so on. The energy comes from the people within the ecosystem. The greater the entrepreneurial spirit of the people the greater the energy and the greater the output.

Entrepreneurial behaviour drives research and development (R&D) to success. Success, like oxygen, then drives an exponential expansion of success, recycling the key components in the process.

The pinch-point

Not every innovation ecosystem is the same, silicon valley the UK is not, and nor should we strive to be. We have different qualities and quantities in our ecosystem, our success will come from different outcomes in different markets.

In my opinion our key failure is we lack enough entrepreneurial spirit.

person shooting arrows but missing the target with a question mark over his head

Accepting the need for failure in innovation

Critically I am not saying we don’t have enough entrepreneurs (although frankly we don’t) I am saying we: government, banks, venture capital organisations, universities, academics, businesses, society, are simply not framed within an entrepreneurial spirit.

We simply don’t accept that failure is a by-product on route to success.

The lack of early stage investment is a barrier

In my experience for example, we don’t lack money in the UK for large funding rounds of low risk, safe and de-risked opportunities. In fact, anecdotally, I have been told we simply don’t have enough deals to meet the investment market demand.

On the flip-side we do lack money at the early stages of commercialisation, even with its potentially huge returns.

business person with a briefcase walking on tightrope between two cliffs

An appetite for risk is needed

Early stage development requires an appetite for risk to achieve a big reward, the best possible multi-disciplinary evaluation matrix and a healthy dose of entrepreneurial spirit from all parties.

Realising the potential in the system

Re-energising the system requires the tipping of behaviours more towards an ecosystem dense with entrepreneurial spirit. We must create space for the risk takers, the dreamers and those who dare to think big. Interventions that enable risk sharing also create opportunities for much greater shared reward.

Interventions such as the Investment Accelerator model adapts behaviours by combing the strengths of innovative businesses, private investors and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), sharing the risk and maximising the success.

Row of nine owls with one owl hanging upside down to be different

Encouraging people to act differently

I believe we should focus on structuring specific programmes that link across multiple stakeholders in the ecosystem.

This enables learning from one another, can generates a greater risk tolerance and would cultivate a sustainable, self-propagating commercialisation system.

Our focus must be on encouraging people to do something different, something bold; by harnessing engaged collective energy and creating a higher concentration of entrepreneurial spirit in the UK ecosystem, commercialisation might just take on a life of its own.

Of course, it’s just a theory.


You can follow Innovate UK on:

Sharing and comments

Share this page


  1. Comment by Andy Pyke posted on

    An excellent article, well put.

    I also believe there is a lack of investment funding around opportunities that are not deemed "Innovative" because we have a view of innovation that is focused largely on invention of new products, systems or services.

    Some innovations are simply a new way of approaching an existing business model. Not as exciting maybe, but easier to quantify and maybe with less risk. They still need support and funding to realise their full potential.

  2. Comment by Dr C D Daniel posted on

    Until academia and higher eduction is brought into the 21st Century none of this is going to happen. The current model whereby academics are funded to generate publications is no longer a model that fits the aspirations of a modern and competitive global industry. It is no longer acceptable that people funded by the tax payer have a free hand to conduct their own research interests with the express purpose of publishing it and generating more research income, this bubble needs to be burst. Funding for the majority of research needs to be guided by commerce and industry. If academics want to continue to pursue their pet interests and publication then this needs to be conducted in their own time. Just tinkering with REF, KEF etc is not going to bring about the radical change that is needed in this sector to align it with the needs of industry and commerce. The sector has remained relatively untouched for decades and grown fat and self indulgent with tax payers money.

  3. Comment by Dr. Erin Schols posted on

    I enjoyed reading this article and think it gives an interesting perspective. What I have found to also be a major barrier in the steps from R&D towards commercialization is the lack of funding at the demonstration stages (TRL 6-8). For technologies that are only profitable on larger scales, these higher TRLs require large budgets to be realized, but are necessary before full commercialization. Companies can often not develop these on their own and so require subsidy programs where they can work with other researchers and industry to continue to optimize and share risk. However, subsidy programs with such high budgets are rare. This requires a shift in governmental spending and how funding programs are structured.

    Within a couple projects that I have coordinated, we have as the end objective an open-innovation platform installation where companies of all sizes--the crucial innovative SMEs up to large industry--can work together on developments using existing equipment. This at least bridges the gap somewhat and expands the impact of the subsidy value. However, this only goes so far.