By Simone Barker | 4-minute read
Government has become increasingly clear about the industries and capabilities it wants to support, from clean energy and advanced manufacturing to critical minerals, commercialisation and sovereign capability. For businesses operating in these areas, that policy alignment matters. But it can also create a false sense of funding fit.
A project can align strongly with a government priority and still be poorly suited to a particular funding program. Increasingly, the difference often comes down to where that project sits in its technology and commercial journey.
Some programs are designed to help businesses develop and prove innovation. Others are designed to support manufacturing, deployment and scale. And many use Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), Commercial Readiness Indices (CRIs), or other maturity scales to define the level of maturity they are designed to support.
Innovation and execution require different evidence
ARENA’s Launchpad Program provides an example of innovation-focused support. Its Startup Funding Round was designed for early-stage startups developing their technology, accelerating their business plans and building momentum towards investment and commercial deployment. The separate Ecosystem Funding Round supports organisations helping those businesses develop and grow.
Solar SunShot Round 3 sits further along the journey. The round allocates up to $250 million for commercial-scale manufacturing, balance-of-plant and deployment technologies, including racking, tracking, robotics, advanced automation and prefabrication.
Applications are expected to involve technologies that will be at least TRL 8 and CRI 3 when manufacturing begins. Those thresholds are more than eligibility details. They define the stage of project the program is intended to support.
A business may therefore be developing technology that aligns strongly with clean-energy and domestic-manufacturing priorities, but still be too early for an execution-focused round. Equally, a business ready to manufacture and deploy at scale may have progressed beyond the purpose of an early-stage commercialisation program.
Right priority sector alignment is only half the funding test. The other half is demonstrating, with evidence an assessor can follow, that the project is at the stage the program is designed to fund.
The TRL you see may not be the TRL an assessor sees
There is another complication. Businesses live with their technology every day. They know what has been developed, tested and demonstrated. They understand the customer discussions, technical results and progress made over several years. That can make their own assessment of maturity feel self-evident. But it’s not necessarily self-evident to an assessor.
Where TRL or CRI thresholds apply, stating that a technology has reached a particular level is different from demonstrating it.
What has actually been demonstrated? Under what conditions? Is it a component, an integrated system or a full operating solution? What evidence shows commercial demand, a viable business model or a credible pathway to scale? And does that evidence support the nominated level, rather than simply the applicant’s confidence in the technology?
he objective is not to claim the highest possible maturity. It is to make a defensible assessment that an external reviewer can follow.
Sometimes that process shows the project is not ready for the program yet. Recognising that before investing in an application is considerably more useful than discovering it through an unsuccessful outcome.
What does this tell us?
Government priority sectors tell businesses where policy and public investment are heading. Program design tells them something more specific: what government is prepared to fund now, and at what stage of development.
Both matter. Before pursuing a program, businesses should separate two questions:
• Are we strategically aligned? Does the project contribute to the industry, capability or policy outcome government is seeking to develop?
• Are we program aligned? Does the project demonstrably sit at the technical and commercial maturity this funding mechanism requires?
A convincing answer to the first does not compensate for a weak answer to the second.
Need help assessing eligibility, technology readiness or shaping a government funding strategy? Get in touch with Simone Barker, or follow her on LinkedIn for updates on upcoming grant rounds and funding strategy insights.
