Evaluating Novel Food and Ingredient Innovations that Leverage Deep Science: Our Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Tool
Supply Change Capital (SCC) invests in technologies to transform the food system. Sometimes, the deals we consider utilize cutting-edge scientific techniques, and they are usually at a very early stage (pre-revenue and/or pre-product). We wanted to adopt a framework by which we could evaluate diverse technologies against a single technology development assessment as a way to calibrate our risk tolerance. In doing so, we looked to industry best practices and our own experiences to inform our approach.
This effort was led by Minami Ogawa, Ph.D. candidate in Food Science at UC Davis under the guidance of Dr. David E. Block, and a Venture Fellow at Supply Change in 2024 in partnership with the UC Davis Innovation Institute for Food & Health. We thank Minami for her leadership!
While NASA’s Technology Readiness Level (TRL) assessment and framework have been widely adopted across various industries, its application to food technology remains limited and as a result, lacks both specificity and flexibility. Supply Change Capital developed a tailored TRL framework to address this gap for our thesis and diligence scope so that we may assess the maturation of novel food technologies in early stage venture capital. This customized framework incorporates sector-specific considerations, including the scientific and technical expertise required for food innovation, various regulatory pathways, and scaling food production using models such as techno-economic assessments (TEA) and life cycle assessments (LCA). The resulting tool provides a comprehensive approach to evaluating novel food investment opportunities and supporting the development of transformative food tech startups.
Developing the framework
NASA developed a technology readiness assessment as a method to estimate the maturity of technologies early in their lifecycle and across different types of technologies. The assessment results are logged on a scale from 1 to 9, with 9 reflecting the most mature technology ready for testing and launch/commercialization operations. A diagram of the NASA TRL chart is shown in Figure 1.
The NASA technology readiness assessment was utilized as a foundational model to develop a TRL framework tailored to novel food technologies. The nine-level fever chart above served as the starting point for establishing benchmarks, which were then systematically adapted to address the specific needs of the novel foods sector as well as the deal diligence areas of Supply Change Capital. Key considerations included the unique requirements of food production processes, the expertise of scientific teams, and the regulatory challenges inherent in commercializing of novel food technologies. Additional inputs to the process included our team’s experience evaluating, investing in, and supporting deep science companies, which represented about 20% of our firm’s invested capital at the time of this review work.
The following steps outline the methodology used to create our customized TRL framework:
Baseline Research and Benchmarking
The original NASA TRL framework was thoroughly analyzed to identify core principles and applicability to novel food technology development.
Publicly available resources, including scientific manuscripts, grant evaluation frameworks (SBIR, DoD/DOE, NSF, USDA, FDA, NIH, CDC), regulatory guidelines, bioprocess engineering reports, and industry white papers, were reviewed to contextualize TRLs within the food technology landscape.
We were also inspired by Lever VC’s insights.
Academic/nonprofit resources: GFI, New Harvest, iCAMP.
Blog posts by Synonym, working mouse.
Engagement with Industry and Academic Experts
Consultations were held with bioengineering professionals, investors, scientists, university professors, and food tech stakeholders who were experienced in TRL applications.
Shoutouts to those who brainstormed and shared their experiences with us, including Connie Bowen and Micki Seibel of Farmhand Ventures, Jeff Chu of Features Capital, and Supply Change Senior Advisor Neil Willcocks.
Framework Drafting
Draft TRL criteria were formulated to align with the thesis priorities and deal diligence aspects of Supply Change’s investment process. Particular emphasis was placed on:
Evaluating the capabilities and expertise of scientific teams.
Addressing regulatory requirements, including safety, compliance, and approvals.
Integrating economic considerations, including TEA, LCA, and manufacturing scale.
Testing and Validation
Initial drafts of the TRL framework were tested with SCC’s existing portfolio companies. This step involved applying the draft criteria to assess the maturity of technologies under development and comparing that to investment memos and our understanding of technical risk at the time of investment.
Feedback from these applications was gathered to identify gaps or ambiguities in the framework. Iterative refinements ensured that the TRL framework was practical, comprehensive, and aligned with the complexities of food technology commercialization.
The framework can be seen in Figure 2 and a downloadable version can be found here.
Applying the framework to the Supply Change investment process
Developing a tailored TRL framework for novel food technologies revealed several important learnings and challenges. One of the primary difficulties in assessing food technology was the diversity in technology approaches and resulting manufacturing processes. Novel foods span a wide range of products, each with distinct physical properties—solid, liquid, or gas—with production through various manufacturing methods. As a result, the framework needed to strike a balance between being specific enough to address food production nuances while remaining broad enough to accommodate future food innovations. Additionally, a significant gap was discovered in understanding innovation and manufacturing, particularly between scientific and non-scientific perspectives. This divergence highlighted the absence of a clear "industry standard." These challenges prompted a consistent focus on determining what rigorous expectations would drive early-stage startups to excel while still being realistic and achievable.
Key variables added to the framework included these below, which helped our team expand from technology to adjacent considerations for a venture-backed deep science company:
Team Composition
Regulatory Readiness
Economics | TEA
Scale
Another key challenge encountered was attempting to set quantitative ranges for scale. Novel food products can vary greatly, with final outputs ranging from micro to macro scales, making it impossible to define a one-size-fits-all benchmarking. As a result, the scale of production had to be contextualized relative to the specific product, rendering broad quantitative measures impractical. When using this TRL, users self-define scalability from lab to commercial.
And yet another key challenge was internal to our firm – where would we draw the line on risk tolerance at PreSeed? At Seed? Could we leverage the assessment to decide what kind of technology readiness or team composition we’d expect to see for a given stage? The answer is fluid - while we have a path forward, we are very much in early test mode.
Despite the challenges faced, the development of the SCC TRL framework resulted in several important achievements. It is the first toolkit specifically designed to guide the evaluation of novel food technologies, addressing not only the technical aspects of manufacturing but also the broader considerations crucial to startup success, such as the expertise of the scientific team. Presented in an easy-to-visualize, table-format roadmap, the framework effectively charts the path from ideation to commercialization for food tech innovations. This makes it an invaluable resource for both investors and founders, offering insight into one way early stage founders may be evaluated by venture capitalists. Moreover, the framework fosters more effective communication between investors and founders, creating a shared dialogue to better understand and navigate the development process.
How Supply Change uses TRL Matrix
Collect novel food technology company information during the early stages of a prospective company’s evaluation
Determine the overall TRL score based on the "Description (Supply Change)" column
The columns that follow are meant to be supportive information on where the technology is expected to be according to that specific TRL level
Example: if the overall TRL score matches TRL 7 "Prototype demonstrated and robust at pilot or production representative environment. The first industrial-scale trials are performed." then the expectation is that the tech also matches the descriptions found in "sample outputs" to "scale" columns at TRL 7.
If technology does not match up to all descriptions in the same TRL (horizontally across one row), efforts should be placed on those areas where the TRL score is lowest.
Example: If overall TRL is 7 but the regulatory column description of the current technology matches closer to a 5, then efforts should be placed on regulatory to bring it up to a score of 7.
The team then makes a comprehensive investment process decision and determines whether or not the company will move forward in the deal process.
What’s next?
The development of this technology readiness framework marks an important step in tailoring readiness assessments to the unique challenges and opportunities within the novel food technology sector. However, like any tool, its effectiveness depends on continuous refinement and input from diverse stakeholders. Supply Change Capital invites collaboration from researchers, industry experts, investors, regulatory professionals, and entrepreneurs to enhance the framework's applicability and precision. Please reach out to hello@supplychange.fund with comments, feedback, and suggestions.