The Funding Readiness Framework
A structured framework for assessing what it takes to compete credibly for external funding — at every stage from translational grants to Series A.
The Problem
Most healthcare innovation teams have a funding problem that is not what they think it is. The science is sound. The unmet need is real. But funders pass — because the narrative is unclear, the evidence is incomplete, or the team cannot yet demonstrate that it understands the path from technology to clinical adoption.
The gap between a strong innovation and a fundable one is rarely scientific. It is almost always a gap in how the team has assembled, documented, and presented the evidence that funders need to make a decision.
The Solution: Think like an investor. Before you need one.
The most effective teams do not pick up this framework when they start preparing for a funding conversation. They pick it up when they start planning their work. The GAITS Funding Readiness Framework gives teams a clear picture of what funders will evaluate — so that picture shapes the work from the start, not after the fact.
The framework is built on four foundations:
Readiness is not a finish line — it is a planning discipline. Teams that use this framework early make better decisions about what to build, what to validate, and what to document. By the time a funding conversation starts, the evidence exists because the work was planned with that standard in mind.
Most teams pursue funding they believe they can get without testing whether it actually fits their current evidence. Targeting too high means walking into a conversation you cannot yet win. Targeting too low means leaving resources and credibility on the table. The framework gives you the criteria to make that call with confidence rather than assumption.
Funders assess two independent dimensions. Project readiness is largely objective — the evidence either exists or it does not. Team readiness has objective elements too: role coverage, domain expertise, execution history. But funders also bring their own judgment about fit and conviction, which varies from funder to funder. The framework helps teams control what they can control, and know clearly where they stand on the rest.
At every stage, some criteria are threshold requirements — without them, other strengths do not matter. Others significantly strengthen your position once those thresholds are met. Knowing which is which changes how you prioritise your work.
Concept to Capital Pathway
Healthcare innovation funding follows a progression from early research grants through increasingly commercial investment stages. This framework begins where research funding ends — at the point where teams move from scientific exploration to structured development with a defined path to clinical and commercial adoption. The five levels covered here represent the funding journey from first translational grant to institutional Series A. Each level has a distinct primary risk, a distinct funder profile, and a distinct set of readiness criteria. The criteria apply across both US and EU contexts; where regulatory pathways or funding instruments differ by geography, this is called out at the relevant criteria level.
Select a funding level to view detailed criteria
The Framework
The Funding Readiness framework defines what funders actually evaluate at each stage of the funding ladder. It does not describe what funders say they evaluate — it describes what they act on. For each stage, criteria are separated into two categories and assessed across two independent dimensions.
Two aspects of the framework deserve particular attention before you work through the criteria.
Project readiness is largely objective. The evidence either exists or it does not. Following the GAITS framework systematically will build the project dimension — it is a process with a clear path.
Team readiness is different. There are objective attributes — role coverage, domain expertise, execution history, time commitment — that can be built and documented. But funders also bring their own judgment about fit, relationships, and conviction. Those factors vary from funder to funder and cannot be fully controlled. The implication is not to ignore the subjective dimension, but to focus your energy on what you can control, and enter funding conversations knowing exactly where your objective team strengths are and where genuine gaps remain.
Funders assess Project and Team independently because a weakness in either dimension represents a different kind of risk that requires a different response. A strong project with a weak team signals execution risk — the opportunity may be real but the people needed to realise it are not yet in place. A strong team with a weak project signals that effort and capability are being applied to an insufficiently validated opportunity. Conflating the two masks these distinctions and produces misleading readiness assessments.
Evidence and execution
The deliverables, validation evidence, regulatory position, and commercial clarity a funder can examine. Assessed independently of the team.
Funders evaluate the project dimension to answer a specific question: is there enough documented, reproducible evidence to justify the risk of this investment at this stage? A compelling verbal narrative does not substitute for documented evidence — it directs attention to where the evidence should be found. At early stages, funders weight feasibility and hypothesis quality. At later stages, they weight demonstrated outcomes, regulatory progress, and market clarity. The project dimension captures what exists independently of any individual — it is what survives a change in team composition.
Capability and commitment
The expertise, role coverage, execution history, and time commitment of the people behind the project. Assessed independently of the project.
Funders evaluate the team dimension because the project alone cannot execute itself. At early stages, the team signal is primarily about whether anyone on the team can actually build what they are proposing — a track record of completing things matters more than credentials. At later stages, funders look for evidence that the team can operate at scale: commercial instincts, organisational experience, and the ability to attract and retain talent. Part-time commitment is a persistent concern at every stage, and funders weight increasing time commitment as a signal of conviction.
Must Have and Should Have
At every stage, criteria are divided into two tiers. Must-Have criteria are gating: a team that cannot demonstrate them is not fundable at that stage regardless of other strengths. Should-Have criteria increase confidence and competitiveness, but they do not compensate for a Must-Have gap.
Both dimensions — project and team — must meet the readiness threshold independently. A strong project with a weak team signals execution risk. A strong team with a weak project signals an underdeveloped opportunity. Both must be addressed.
Must-Have criteria are assessed independently for Project and Team. Both dimensions must meet the threshold — a strong project with a weak team, or vice versa, does not produce a ready result.