I’ve submitted my Master’s dissertation at the University of Cambridge and developed a strategic innovation readiness framework. The research explored why promising innovations stall before adoption. It reinforced that regulatory frameworks, supply chain capacity and market perceptions all play decisive roles. Technical validation alone is not enough. The framework is designed to support innovators, policymakers and industry. It adapts TRL (Technology Readiness Levels) and CRI (Commercial Readiness Indicator) and introduces four navigation zones to reflect the non-linear nature of innovation. Alongside the framework, I have identified five strategic levers, visibility, trust, capability, alignment and ownership, to guide interventions in the system and shape the actions needed to unlock adoption. The framework works in three steps: • Map the innovation on TRL and CRI (backing sheets available) • Review the system it sits in (regulation, supply chains, market context) • Act using the strategic levers to plan the journey The framework was developed through a case study of incinerator bottom ash aggregate (IBAA) as a supplementary cementitious material. It was user tested with a range of other low-carbon material innovations. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the surveys and interviews and helped shape both the framework and the findings. The research focused on low-carbon materials but the framework is sector-agnostic. It can be applied to individual innovations or used across portfolios in infrastructure, energy, manufacturing or beyond. The next steps are to progress the strategic actions identified for IBAA and develop a practical user guide that will broaden the framework’s impact. 👉 If you’re working on innovation adoption, circular economy or policy design, I’d welcome the chance to connect. This research was completed as part of the Construction Engineering Masters at the University of Cambridge. (Staunton, 2025. TRL–CRI Innovation Readiness Framework. Adapted from TRL (NASA) and CRI (ARENA). Licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) #Cambridge #InnovationFramework #Infrastructure #SystemsThinking #TRL #CRI #IBAA #ConstructionEngineeringMasters
Congrats, Michael!
Neil Ganju
4w
Great piece of research with real world application. Congratulations
Alison Judge
3w
Yay! Michael, wishing you all the best. I remember your presentation clearly, and have every confidence in you.
Nice work Michael Staunton ! The validation valley of death rings true!!!
A neat graphic. It reminds me of Wardley Mapping
Interesting work Michael I'm curious to know, which of the five strategic levers was generally the most challenging for organizations to get right? Trust and capability had been my pain points
Hi Michael, this is a thoughtful synthesis. I think the framework makes it clear why technical validation alone is not enough, and the levers you identify are practical for industry. That said, I believe its strength probably lies in application rather than theory-building. Have you successfully applied it?
Jonny S.
4w
Love a good framework!! Congratulations 🥂
Engineering Manager | Suburban Rail Loop | Leading Innovation & Strategy
4wOne distinctive feature of the framework is the use of navigation zones. These show not just where an innovation sits, but what kind of strategic focus is needed to move it forward. For example, in early stages visibility and trust are often critical, whereas alignment and ownership become decisive later on. In your experience, where do you see innovation adoption most often stalling?