The complexity of selling ideas and innovation vs a repeatable service or product

Introduction

Bidding best practices, as well documented by APMP, lend themselves well to a commercial setting, where the focus is selling a defined product or service but tailored to customer pain points or solutions to customer problems. What struck me when I joined the world of Research and Development bidding is the complexity of selling a product or service that does not yet exist. I had questions – how we frame to ensure investment in developing the new concept, how do we identify the stakeholders who might need the solution, what does it solve, and who would bring the product to market. Specifically, related to my role, a key question for me from the outset is how I adjust bidding techniques to make them fit for purpose in this environment. That ambition is very much a work in progress (and hence the creation of the APMP R&D Interest Committee, RADIC), but in this article I explore the nuances.

Defining Innovation in the R&D Context

The dictionary definition of innovation is “a new idea or method” or “the creating and use of new ideas or methods.” In R&D we are often considering distinct types of innovation, which have been summarised by Nick Jain (2023), from IdeaScale, and noted to have unique benefits for the resulting end user(s). Innovation types proposed by Jain include - Sustainable Innovation; Digital Innovation; Disruptive Innovation; Business Model Innovation and Process Innovation. When considering this, we need to tailor bidding best practice processes and approaches to suit the complexity of winning work in an R&D landscape. An ability to see challenges as opportunities to improve is critical to working innovatively, which requires the willingness to deal with the unknown, an assessment of risk appetite, creative thinking and desire to continuously develop, even when faced with blockers along the way (we all know that not all new concepts make it much further than that initial idea).

Measuring Progress: Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

In the Research & Development (R&D) landscape the innovation progress is often measured by Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs), with a view of assessing the maturity level of technology and providing a framework to develop a basic concept or principle (idea initiation) to a qualified and operational ready a product or service. There are sector differences between defined TRLs, to make them fit for purpose in each scenario. As part of our work in RADIC, we are preparing a graphical view of which funding aligns best to support which part of the TRL progression journey. More to follow on this soon!

From Concept to Commercialization: Demonstrating ROI

When innovating, the aim should be that the concept can be available for the intended user, and order to make it accessible it usually requires a commercialisation partner e.g. the company that will make the concept, once tested and qualified, part of the standard offering (Business as Usual). So, whilst we may bid for government backed grant funding to support innovation developments, the funder will usually expect to see a projected return on investment (ROI) for the taxpayer’s money. To demonstrate this potential ROI, we must articulate our planned approach for technology development progression, the target market, potential customers, and who will make the offering commercially available.

Identifying Value and Measuring Impact

When bidding in an environment where the offering is not repeatable, or an off-the-shelf product or service, we need to consider the problem areas we are trying to provide a solution for. We often refer to these as ‘customer pain points,’ even when the customer is not always immediately clear. If we can identify the pitfalls of a current solution or product offering, sometimes identified by government led analysis and resulting strategies, then we can explore a new way of tackling this area. As is always the case when creating value propositions, we need to explore what our proposed concept offers in terms of benefits against the current, traditional solution, or in an area where there is not an existing solution.

It is important to note that not all benefits need to be financial, indeed these could include environmental benefits and improving societal inclusion. When preparing your bid, you should consider how you can effectively measure the impact of your proposed project, noting that government grant funding backed project will often expect detailed impact assessment reporting, often referred to as Impact Monitoring and Evaluation.

Adapting the Capture Phase for R&D

With all this said, focusing on the considerations we need to make in R&D bidding, below I’ve detailed high-level Capture phase bidding activities, with key objectives, that if done well, increase the likelihood of winning bids by strategical positioning and preparation before the proposal is live.

‍

‍

Conclusion

Bidding within the Research & Development (R&D) environment requires a distinct approach - one that acknowledges the inherent uncertainty of innovation while still applying structured, strategic practices. Traditional commercial bidding principles, as championed by APMP, provide a strong foundation, but they must be adapted to suit the complexities of selling a concept rather than a product. This means rethinking how we identify stakeholders, define customer pain points, and demonstrate return on investment - often before a tangible solution even exists.

Through frameworks such as Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), careful stakeholder mapping, and an emphasis on impact (not just financial but societal and environmental), we can better position our innovative ideas for success. The capture phase becomes not just a preparation step, but a vital opportunity to shape the proposal’s direction, build a capable team, and anticipate the risks of an uncertain landscape.

As we continue to evolve our approach through initiatives like RADIC, it is clear that successful R&D bidding is underpinned by creativity, strategy, and foresight. By embracing these distinctions, we stand a better chance of turning innovative ideas into funded, impactful solutions that ultimately reach the users and markets they are designed to serve.

‍