SPRIND | Special challenges require special formats

SPECIAL CHALLENGES REQUIRE SPECIAL FORMATS

In an interview, challenge officer Jano Costard talks about the competition that transforms ideas into breakthrough innovations.

Anyone can apply for SPRIND Challenges, but only outstanding ideas will receive funding and only those who demonstrate convincing progress will receive further support in the next stage of the challenge. In this interview, Challenge officer Jano Costard explains how SPRIND specifically selects challenges, promotes unusual approaches and uses a multi-stage model to launch innovations with breakthrough potential.

JANO, THE WORLD IS CURRENTLY FACING SO MANY CHALLENGES – HOW DO YOU CHOOSE A CHALLENGE TOPIC?

Jano Costard: There really are many pressing problems, but some areas, such as AI, have already garnered lot of public and private support in Germany. Instead, we look at where there is a lack of funding and ask ourselves which topics are important but neglected. Our broad-spectrum antivirals challenge, for example, has huge social potential, but at the same time there is an enormous technological gap that is unlikely to be filled by other players. We must compensate for this market failure.

IN PRINCIPLE, ANYONE CAN TAKE PART IN A SPRIND CHALLENGE. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE FIELD WITH THE CHALLENGES?

JC: If you invite people from outside the field to apply, you also receive submissions that don’t normally make it into a state-funded project. But we know that the people with the best ideas – with the greatest potential – often do not come from the circle of established experts. We want to show these people that it makes sense to move into a new field. After all, this can lead them to completely rethinking themselves and their existing technologies. This is why our tiered model makes so much sense: We give many seemingly utopian approaches a chance and sort them out as the challenge progresses in order to concentrate on the most promising innovations as soon as the potential of technologies and teams becomes clearer.

NONSENSICAL FANTASIES AND BRILLIANT FLASHES OF INSPIRATION CAN LOOK SIMILAR AT FIRST GLANCE. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHICH IS WHICH?

JC: Our jury is made up of experienced experts with different perspectives who specialise in the topic of the respective challenge. We also work a lot with external stakeholders during the development process of a challenge and of course also during the challenge itself to obtain their feedback. However, it is not so much finding expertise that is tricky, but rather deciding which feedback carries weight. Ultimately, the SPRIND challenges are driven by the recognition that we cannot be sure which innovation will actually become a breakthrough innovation if we do not try it out. This is why several teams and technologies compete against each other in every challenge.

THOSE WHO MAKE IT INTO THE CHALLENGE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO GOOD FUNDING.

JC: Yes, because the combination of a very early stage of development and unvalidated technology often makes it necessary for us to fund the teams in full. There is no big prize money at the end of our challenges; instead we offer turn-based funding. And the teams do not all get the same amount of money, but rather apply for a certain amount of funding. This is also an evaluation criterion for us and we are always pleased when teams succeed in raising additional funds, whether public or private. After all, this not only shows that teams are capable of making progress more quickly, but it also speaks for their ability to continue funding themselves independently later on.

APART FROM THE MONEY, HOW ELSE DOES SPRIND SUPPORT THE TEAMS?

JC: Our guidance and support is always very specifically tailored to the topic of the challenge and the respective teams. We have participants who have already built up a full academic career but are starting a company for the first time. It is normal that these new entrepreneurs suddenly have a lot to learn and need to structure their work in a completely different way. We give them the confidence and encouragement that it can be done and achieved. We can make clear recommendations regarding how to spin off from the university on the best possible terms, for example, and we can actively promote networking between the teams and other experts. And, of course, we also facilitate networking between the teams themselves.

BUT AREN’T THE TEAMS DIRECTLY COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER?

JC: The real competition takes place outside the challenge, in the existing markets that need to be disrupted. Our teams are therefore not so much focused on the idea of I really want to win the challenge. Maybe also because there is no prize money at the end of the challenge for which everyone is competing. Instead, innovators are driven by the goal of solving the overarching problem. If the teams believe that they can achieve the goal of the challenge and that it has breakthrough potential, then they are simply passionate about what they are doing.

THE CHALLENGES USUALLY RUN FOR SEVERAL YEARS. EACH YEAR, THE TEAMS ARE RE-ASSESSED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY MAKE IT TO THE NEXT ROUND. ARE THERE CLEAR GOALS THAT NEED TO BE ACHIEVED IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD?

JC: The basic idea is that we want to see something being demonstrated. We’re not interested in seeing another iteration of a concept; we want to see data that tells us whether what you set out to do can work or not. Of course, we also consider the typical rate of progress in each area. Some experiments simply require a lot of time or elaborate prototypes have to be built. And sometimes it just doesn’t make sense to say this is the point that needs to be reached in order to move forward. The more we focus on quantifiable key figures, the better we can compare the teams and the more competition we have. On the one hand, this is good, but on the other hand, we run the risk of excluding important solutions that do not fit these key figures. This is why we communicate to teams primarily verbally what we are about, where we see the challenges lie and what the goal of the challenge is. This sometimes includes key figures, but these are mainly for orientation purposes, so we don’t say, If you haven’t reached level such-and-such in the next three months, you’re automatically out.

Failure is part of the plan.

BUT EVEN TEAMS WITH A LOT OF POTENTIAL DO NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT TO THE NEXT CHALLENGE STAGE.

JC: It is always a difficult decision when you have to say goodbye to teams that have worked hard to solve a problem. Depending on what kind of team it is, the stage it is currently at and what it needs in its field, we therefore also try to find other investors to continue to support it. But even if it is not easy to communicate these decisions to the teams, I believe that competition and rivalry are very valuable, because it encourages the teams to make progress that they would never have made otherwise. After they have been eliminated, some teams tell us that what they achieved through the SPRIND challenge in one year would normally have taken them more than three years. And I believe that this one year, the money and time invested will really have been worth it, even if things don’t go any further with us.

YOU PROBABLY CAN’T PREVENT TEAMS FROM FAILING, CAN YOU?

JC: That’s not how we see it. At the end of the day, all participants are winners. This is because the challenge itself presents a major learning curve when teams develop their solutions and themselves further. For us, technological openness means that during the course of a challenge, both we and the teams might learn that a certain approach does not have the potential that we expected or hoped for. Or that one team may not have the potential we had hoped for. On the other hand, we can also learn that certain approaches have much greater potential than we thought, or that a team develops in a way that we could never have imagined. And this openness to developments, both positive and negative, is absolutely essential.

SPRIND Challenges and SPRIND Funken

HOW DO THE SPRIND SPARKS DIFFER FROM SPRIND CHALLENGES?

JC: The main difference is that the SPRIND sparks only run for six to nine months instead of two or three years. In such a short time, it is impossible to develop much that is fundamentally new, at least in terms of hardware. That’s why the sparks focus on enabling teams to demonstrate the limits of what a technology can do. Our main focus is on delivering fast demonstrations. This works particularly well in the area of software development. But it has also proved effective in other areas – there are already approaches for 3D-printed organs, for example. We want to accelerate further development in this field through our tissue engineering spark. After all, when others see what is already possible, they are more willing to invest. We use the sparks to give developments a final push towards achieving a breakthrough or to enable new investments.

HOW DO THE CHALLENGES AND SPARKS DIFFER FROM OTHER PUBLIC FUNDING?

JC: What we and other public institutions want is for start-ups to be founded that conquer the world. However, teams that also apply for other public funding often tell me that they sometimes have to wait 18 months or even two years to actually receive money. With the SPRIND challenges and sparks, we have shown that we do not slow down entrepreneurs, but rather offer them rapid, comprehensive support as a partner. This is why we place great importance on short deadlines and minimal bureaucracy. Our funding instrument ensures transparency and predictability. Another difference is that we do not restrict our financing to Germany, but provide it throughout Europe. The issues we want to tackle through the challenges are so big and important that we cannot afford not to think outside the box.

It is amazing and hugely motivating to see everything that is possible.

WHAT INSPIRES YOU MOST ABOUT THE CHALLENGES AND SPARKS?

JC: Seeing what is possible is hugely motivating. Among other things, we are working on the decarbonization of the chemical industry and removing CO₂ from the atmosphere at the same time. That sounds a little too good to be true, but maybe it really is possible. The teams inspire me to believe that we really can solve the challenges of our time.