Innovation rarely fails because people lack ideas. It fails because promising ideas struggle to cross the space between an interesting concept and credible evidence that it works.
This is the missing middle of innovation: the journey from Technology Readiness Level 2, where a technological concept has been formulated, through TRL 3, where proof of concept is established, to TRL 4, where the technology has been validated under laboratory conditions.
It sounds like a short step. In practice, it is where many potentially valuable innovations die.
The evidence gap
At TRL 2, an innovator may have a strong hypothesis, early research and a convincing description of the problem. What they lack is sufficient evidence. Customers cannot see a working solution. Investors cannot assess whether the principal technical risks have been reduced. Funders cannot distinguish between a bold proposition and an unsupported claim.
The innovator therefore faces a paradox: they need resources to generate evidence, but they need evidence to secure resources.
This is often described as a funding gap, but money is only part of the problem. There is also a capability gap. Moving towards TRL 4 requires experimental design, systems engineering, customer discovery, project governance and commercial judgement. The creator may not possess all those capabilities.
Activity is not the same as progress
Many early projects appear busy without becoming more investable. Teams build features before confirming the core technical hypothesis. They commission prototypes that demonstrate appearance rather than function. They speak to supportive contacts instead of prospective buyers. They report tasks completed rather than uncertainties reduced.
This produces the illusion of progress.
A credible TRL 3 project should be organised around explicit questions. What must be true for the technology to work? Which assumption presents the greatest risk? What experiment would test it? What counts as success or failure?
TRL progression is not simply a matter of spending time on development. It is the disciplined reduction of uncertainty.
Technology cannot progress alone
Another mistake is treating readiness as purely technical. A proof of concept can work while the wider proposition remains unviable. The customer may not consider the problem important. Integration may be too complex. Data may be inaccessible. Security, regulation or operating costs may prevent adoption.
Technical evidence must develop alongside market and delivery evidence. By TRL 4, a team should understand whether the technology can work, who might buy it, why they would act and what barriers stand in the way.
Building a bridge across the missing middle
Promising ideas need a structured evidence plan, not simply encouragement. This should define the critical hypotheses, experiments, acceptance criteria, responsibilities, costs and evidence needed for the next investment decision. Each activity should answer a material question or retire a significant risk.
Universities, accelerators and innovation agencies also need to rethink their support. Too many programmes reward pitching, generic mentoring and participation. Innovators need technical facilities, product leadership, relevant customers, commercial expertise and patient funding tied to learning milestones.
The objective should not be to protect every idea. Some should stop. A well-designed experiment that disproves a concept is more valuable than months spent sustaining false optimism.
The real purpose of the missing middle is selection through evidence. Ideas that survive emerge stronger, more focused and more credible. Those that do not release their people, time and capital for better opportunities.
Innovation policy often celebrates discovery and later-stage scale-up. Between them lies the less glamorous work of proving, testing and learning. Until we invest properly in that work, too many good ideas will continue to disappear before they are given a fair chance to succeed.