The PRL framework

Slide 1 of 18 · ContentsWhat will we cover, and how do we use this deck?

TakeawayLearn the model, then play the climb to test yourself.

Slide 1 | 18

Practitioner Readiness Level

Should we build it?

PRL validates practitioner adoption intent and workflow integration before capital is committed to technical development.

Core principle · never skip a voice

Using this deck

Present: ← → to move, C for contents, F for fullscreen.
Hand out: print the whole deck or a single slide.

Learn · 17 slides

Learn the model

The complete PRL framework, chart by chart: scale, stakeholders, success criteria, gates and scoring.

Why PRL

Slide 2 of 18 · The problemWhy do technically viable innovations still fail?

TakeawayAsk “should we build it?” before “can we build it?”

Slide 2 | 18

01 · The crisis

Why innovation fails

Technically viable is not the same as adopted.

£50B

Annual UK business R&D investment, with stagnant real-term growth since 2018.

Stalled

High UK R&D project failure rates: many never reach production.

Unadopted

Significant adoption gaps despite technical viability in public-sector innovation.

The gap: technology push. Solutions are built for perceived needs, then practitioners won't adopt them.

02 · Three lenses

Can vs should

Readiness levels ask different questions.

TRL“Can we build it?”

Catches: Technical impossibility, eventually, through expensive experiments.

CRL“Can we sell it?”

Catches: Business-model issues, eventually, through expensive market testing.

PRL“Should we build it?”

Catches: Technical, commercial, regulatory, operational and adoption failure modes at once, in weeks not years.

Governance rule

PRL must lead or equal TRL at all times.

This enforces practitioner pull over technology push.

03 · The method

Four rules

Together they reduce innovation failure.

01“Never skip a voice”Validate with all 12 stakeholders before proceeding.
02“Test simple before tech”Paper, concierge or no-code pilots before you build.
03“Co-create, don't dictate”Work shoulder-to-shoulder with practitioners.
04“Share everything”Build in public and publish learnings, including failures.

The power of PRL is the power of the Townhouse: a convening method that brings diverse expertise together to catch failures early.

The Townhouse

Slide 3 of 18 · The modelHow does a project move from problem to sector standard?

TakeawayFour floors, nine levels. Up only when practitioners validate.

Slide 3 | 18

01 · The building

Four floors, nine levels

You only take the elevator up when practitioners validate.

Who we bring together

Intentionally interdisciplinary: better technology emerges when diverse perspectives collide.

TechnologistsHealth workersTeachersLawyersCommunity leadersSector professionals

02 · Floor 1 · Knowledge Transfer & Discovery

Collaborate

Establishes the foundational requirement for all R&D: practitioner-validated problem identification. Prevents innovations built for perceived rather than actual needs.

1

Practitioner-Identified Problem

Is the problem practitioner-identified and operationally significant?

Ask Practitioner (Daily User): “Do you face this problem daily?”

2

Cohort-Validated Problem

Is this an industry-wide problem or localized pain point?

Ask Practitioners (Sector Cohort): “Is this a sector-wide problem or just your organisation?”

2.5

Pilot Commitment Validation

Will practitioners and domain experts commit time to solution development?

Ask Practitioners (Pilot Participants): “Will you commit 10+ hours over 2 weeks to test solutions?”

3

Economic Signal Validation

Have all ecosystem stakeholders been consulted across the value chain?

Ask Customer (Pays) + 12 Stakeholders: “Will you pay £X today to fix this?”

Stage gate

Every level needs evidence, a clear yes from the right person, and no unresolved red flags.

The PRL scale

Slide 4 of 18 · The modelWhat does each readiness level prove, and who proves it?

TakeawayEvery level has one question, one right person and one red-flag answer.

Slide 4 | 18

FORTRESS stage

Collaborate · Knowledge Transfer & DiscoveryExperiment · Stress Test & ValidateBuild · Practitioner-Led & ResearchScale · Growth, Markets & Ecosystem

The PRL scale
PRL	Core validation question	Primary evidence	Right person	Right question	Red-flag answer	Stage
1	Is the problem practitioner-identified and operationally significant?	1-3 practitioners articulate top-3 pain	Practitioner (Daily User)	“Do you face this problem daily?”	Occasionally or Sometimes	CollaborateKnowledge Transfer & Discovery
2	Is this an industry-wide problem or localized pain point?	≥10 practitioners across organisations confirm; sector mapping validates scope	Practitioners (Sector Cohort)	“Is this a sector-wide problem or just your organisation?”	Only 1-2 organisations face it	CollaborateKnowledge Transfer & Discovery
2.5	Will practitioners and domain experts commit time to solution development?	≥5 practitioners commit scheduled time; LOI for pilot participation	Practitioners (Pilot Participants)	“Will you commit 10+ hours over 2 weeks to test solutions?”	Maybe later or If we have time	CollaborateKnowledge Transfer & Discovery
3	Have all ecosystem stakeholders been consulted across the value chain?	All 12 stakeholder voices validated; economic signal confirmed	Customer (Pays) + 12 Stakeholders	“Will you pay £X today to fix this?”	Let me think or After v2	CollaborateKnowledge Transfer & Discovery
4	What technology innovation type is proposed and what baseline performance exists?	Tech classified; ≥70% task completion in analogue pilot	Supply Chain + Academics	“Can we source, build, deliver this reliably?”	Can't source materials or Impossible	ExperimentStress Test & Validate
5	Does technology demonstrate utility, impact, or originality in real-world conditions?	Measurable workflow impact; practitioners validate usefulness	Practitioner (Daily User)	“Does this save you 2+ hours per week?”	Maybe or I'd try it	ExperimentStress Test & Validate
6	Can innovation withstand multi-stakeholder adversarial testing?	NPS ≥80; TVR ≥10; cross-sector stress test passed	Frontline Operator + Market	“Would you fight to keep this tool?”	Silence, shrugs, or It's okay	ExperimentStress Test & Validate
7	Can innovator demonstrate documented practitioner impact?	≥1 peer-reviewed case study; academic validation	Internal Champion	“Does your team need this yesterday to win?”	Nice to have or Eventually	BuildPractitioner-Led & Research
8	Will practitioners sustain adoption beyond proof-of-concept?	≥100 users; 90% retention; 30% referral; week-long operational trial	Community (Peer Network)	“Would you recommend this to peers?”	<30% referral rate	ScaleGrowth & Markets
9	Has innovation achieved commercial validation and sector adoption?	≥1 paying customer with contract; community of practice; policy influence	Market + Customer	“Is this becoming sector standard?”	No ecosystem effects visible	ScalePromotion & Ecosystem

Three readiness lenses

Slide 5 of 18 · The modelHow does PRL relate to TRL and CRL?

TakeawayTRL: can we build it? CRL: will someone pay? PRL: should we build it?

Slide 5 | 18

TRL

Lab testing (12–18 months)

“Can we build it?”

Validates:: Technical feasibility
Catches:: Technical impossibility

CRL

Market testing (6–12 months)

“Will someone pay?”

Validates:: Business viability
Catches:: Market / business model

PRL

Multi-stakeholder review (1–4 weeks)

“Should we build it? Will practitioners use it?”

Validates:: End-user adoption + all of the above
Catches:: All failure modes

Level-by-level alignment of TRL, CRL and PRL
Level	TRL · Technology	CRL · Commercial	PRL · Practitioner	Stage
1	Basic principles observed	Hypothetical commercial proposition	Practitioner-Identified Problem1-3 practitioners articulate top-3 pain	collaborate
2	Technology concept formulated	Commercial proposition formulated	Cohort-Validated Problem≥10 practitioners across organisations confirm; sector mapping validates scope	collaborate
2.5	—	—	Pilot Commitment Validation≥5 practitioners commit scheduled time; LOI for pilot participation	collaborate
3	Experimental proof of concept	Applied research based on market reality	Economic Signal ValidationAll 12 stakeholder voices validated; economic signal confirmed	collaborate
4	Technology validated in lab	Small-scale pilot commercially valid	Analogue Solution EfficacyTech classified; ≥70% task completion in analogue pilot	experiment
5	Technology validated in relevant environment	Large-scale pilot commercially validated	Digital Prototype Workflow IntegrationMeasurable workflow impact; practitioners validate usefulness	experiment
6	Technology demonstrated in relevant environment	Commercial trial with repeat customers	Immediate Switch ValidationNPS ≥80; TVR ≥10; cross-sector stress test passed	experiment
7	System prototype in operational environment	Commercial launch with market traction	Champion Advocacy & Mobilisation≥1 peer-reviewed case study; academic validation	build
8	System complete and qualified	Scaling product/business	Operational Embedding≥100 users; 90% retention; 30% referral; week-long operational trial	scale
9	System proven in operational environment	Sustainable business model proven	Sector Standard & Ecosystem Transformation≥1 paying customer with contract; community of practice; policy influence	scale

PRL 2.5 has no TRL or CRL equivalent: pilot commitment is unique to practitioner readiness.

FORTRESS four phases

Slide 6 of 18 · The methodWhat happens in each phase, and what counts as success?

TakeawayEach phase has one rule, its own red flags and a rising gate score.

Slide 6 | 18

Phase 1 · PRL 1–3

Collaborate

Knowledge Transfer & Discovery

Core rule

“Never skip a voice”

Action

Validate with all 12 stakeholders (no exceptions)

Validation questions

Face this daily?
Sector-wide?
Will you pay today?
Can we source/build?
Is timing right?

Red flags = kill

“Occasionally”
“Let me think”
“Too early/late”
“Can't source”
Any 1 of 12 voices = NO

Success signal

11/12 YES → proceed
Any NO → pivot or kill

Gate score

≥60/100

Phase 2 · PRL 4–6

Experiment

Stress Test & Validate

Core rule

“Test simple before tech”

Action

Paper prototypes
Concierge MVP
No-code pilots

Validation questions

Save 2+ hours/week?
Fight to keep it?
Integrates in workflow?

Red flags = kill

“Maybe”
Silence / shrugs
“Too disruptive”

Success signal

Retention (not clicks)
Willingness to pay
NPS ≥80, TVR ≥10

Gate score

≥80/100

Phase 3 · PRL 7

Build

Practitioner-Led & Research

Core rule

“Co-create, don't dictate”

Action

Champions co-own roadmap
Academic validation
Case study development

Validation questions

Need this yesterday?
Will you defend it?
Can you recruit peers?

Red flags = kill

“Nice to have”
Won't mobilise budget
Can't recruit champions

Success signal

They use it daily & defend it
≥3 champions
≥1 case study
Academic validation

Gate score

≥90/100

Phase 4 · PRL 8–9

Scale

Growth & Markets / Promotion & Ecosystem

Core rule

“Share everything”

Action

Publish learnings
Document failures
Open roadmap
Create community

Validation questions

Recommend to peers?
Is this sector standard?
Will you pay?

Red flags = kill

<30% referral
No ecosystem effects
No paying customers

Success signal

Others copy, improve, or join
100+ users
90% retention
30% referral
≥1 paying customer

Gate score

≥90/100 + 7% WoW

The 12-stakeholder model

Slide 7 of 18 · The voicesWhich voices validate at which level?

TakeawayNever skip a voice: all 12 validate by PRL 3.

Slide 7 | 18

01 · Activity map

Who validates when

Select a stakeholder to see their question. Filled = active at that level; ringed = the gate's right person.

Stakeholder activity by PRL level
1	2	2.5	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Active, right person	Active, right person	Active, right person	Not active	Not active	Active, right person	Active, right person	Not active	Active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Active, right person	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active, right person
Active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active, right person	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active, right person	Active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Active, right person	Not active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Not active	Not active	Active, right person	Not active	Not active	Active, right person
Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active
Active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active	Active	Not active	Active	Not active
Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Not active	Active, right person	Active

At PRL 3 every voice must validate, active or not (“never skip a voice”). Dashed = consulted at PRL 3 only.

01 · Daily End Users

Practitioners

“Do you face this problem daily?”

Validates: Problem frequency; workflow reality; operational pain
Catches: Low-frequency problems; theoretical issues; nice-to-haves
Red-flag answers: “Occasionally” · “Sometimes” · “Not urgent”
Active at: PRL 1, 2, 2.5, 5, 6, 8

02 · Real-world examples

What a red flag sounds like

Practitioner (Daily user): “Does this save you 2+ hours a week?”

Red flags: “Maybe”, “I'd try it”

If practitioners can't definitively say yes, the problem isn't urgent enough.

Customer (Pays): “Will you pay £X today to fix this?”

Red flags: “Let me think”, “After v2”

Delayed payment signals low urgency or a misaligned value proposition.

Frontline operator (End user): “Would you fight to keep this tool?”

Red flags: “Silence”, “Shrugs”

If operators won't advocate for the tool, adoption will fail.

Success criteria

Slide 8 of 18 · The gatesWhat exactly must be true to pass each level?

TakeawayEvidence, not opinion, moves a project up.

Slide 8 | 18

Collaborate

Experiment

Build

Scale

PRL 1

Practitioner-Identified Problem

Knowledge Transfer & Discovery

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Is the problem articulated by practitioners in their operational context?

011-3 domain practitioners independently identify pain point as top-3 operational challenge
02Problem documented using practitioner's own terminology (not researcher language)
03Problem manifests ≥3 times per week in normal workflow conditions
04Problem causation understood by practitioners (not just symptoms)

Right person · Practitioner (Daily User)

“Do you face this problem daily?”

Red-flag answer: Occasionally or Sometimes

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Knowledge Transfer Roundtables

Structured problem surfacing sessions convening cross-sector practitioners (NHS clinicians, teachers, solicitors, supply chain managers, public sector workers)

Problem Mapping Workshops

Facilitated sessions to distinguish root causes from symptomatic complaints

Cross-Sector Peer Review

Practitioners from adjacent domains validate whether analogous problems exist

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Impossible Problem

No known solution pathway within 5-year horizon

→ Research alternative problems within same practitioner domain

Impractical Problem

Solution requires systemic change beyond capacity

→ Narrow scope to addressable sub-problem

Non-Urgent Problem

Cannot articulate consequences of non-resolution

→ Research what practitioners consider genuinely urgent

Gate threshold · PRL 1

Problem must score ≥60/100 on urgency-feasibility matrix to progress to PRL 2

PRL 1

Practitioner-Identified Problem

Knowledge Transfer & Discovery

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Is the problem articulated by practitioners in their operational context?

011-3 domain practitioners independently identify pain point as top-3 operational challenge
02Problem documented using practitioner's own terminology (not researcher language)
03Problem manifests ≥3 times per week in normal workflow conditions
04Problem causation understood by practitioners (not just symptoms)

Right person · Practitioner (Daily User)

“Do you face this problem daily?”

Red-flag answer: Occasionally or Sometimes

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Knowledge Transfer Roundtables

Structured problem surfacing sessions convening cross-sector practitioners (NHS clinicians, teachers, solicitors, supply chain managers, public sector workers)

Problem Mapping Workshops

Facilitated sessions to distinguish root causes from symptomatic complaints

Cross-Sector Peer Review

Practitioners from adjacent domains validate whether analogous problems exist

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Impossible Problem

No known solution pathway within 5-year horizon

→ Research alternative problems within same practitioner domain

Impractical Problem

Solution requires systemic change beyond capacity

→ Narrow scope to addressable sub-problem

Non-Urgent Problem

Cannot articulate consequences of non-resolution

→ Research what practitioners consider genuinely urgent

Gate threshold · PRL 1

Problem must score ≥60/100 on urgency-feasibility matrix to progress to PRL 2

PRL 2

Cohort-Validated Problem

Knowledge Transfer & Discovery

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Does the problem persist across a statistically meaningful practitioner cohort?

01≥10 practitioners independently rank problem in personal top-3 operational challenges
02Qualitative validation via job shadowing, workflow observation, or ethnographic study
03Problem persists across different organisational contexts (not unique to one site/team)
04Practitioners can articulate impact on service delivery, patient/client outcomes, or operational efficiency

Right person · Practitioners (Sector Cohort)

“Is this a sector-wide problem or just your organisation?”

Red-flag answer: Only 1-2 organisations face it

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Discovery Sprints

8-hour on-site immersion with practitioners in operational environment

Cross-Sector Validation Panels

Practitioners from multiple organisations convene to triangulate problem prevalence

Workflow Documentation

Systematic mapping of current-state processes to identify pain point frequency and impact

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Niche Problem

<10 practitioners; highly specific context

→ Narrow to specialist segment OR research broader adjacent problems

Perception-Reality Gap

Practitioners report problem but observation contradicts

→ Research underlying frustrations driving perception

Low-Consequence Problem

Problem exists but creates minimal operational impact

→ Research high-consequence problems in same domain

Gate threshold · PRL 2

Problem must achieve ≥65/100 on prevalence-impact scoring to progress to PRL 2.5

PRL 2.5

Pilot Commitment Validation

Knowledge Transfer & Discovery

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Will practitioners allocate time and organisational permission to test potential solutions?

01≥5 practitioners sign non-financial Letter of Intent committing to 2-week pilot participation
02Practitioners commit specific time slots within existing workflows (not "if I have time")
03Line manager/organisational approval secured for pilot activity
04Clear success criteria co-defined by practitioners (not imposed by researchers)

Right person · Practitioners (Pilot Participants)

“Will you commit 10+ hours over 2 weeks to test solutions?”

Red-flag answer: Maybe later or If we have time

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Pilot Commitment Workshops

Structured sessions where practitioners co-design pilot scope, timeline, and success metrics

Organisational Alignment Sessions

Engagement with operational managers to secure time allocation and remove barriers

Pre-Pilot Risk Assessment

Practitioners identify what could prevent participation, enabling mitigation planning

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Low Priority

Won't commit time = problem insufficiently urgent

→ Research what practitioners WOULD prioritise; reframe or pivot

Organisational Barriers

Practitioners willing but managers block participation

→ Research organisational change readiness; build stakeholder buy-in first

Risk Aversion

Practitioners fear pilot disruption to service delivery

→ Research lower-risk pilot designs; increase organisational safety protocols

Gate threshold · PRL 2.5

Minimum 5 committed practitioners with organisational approval to progress to PRL 3

PRL 3

Economic Signal Validation

Knowledge Transfer & Discovery

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Is there demonstrable willingness-to-pay from both individual practitioners and institutional budget holders?

01Small Entity Validation: ≥30% conversion rate on £100 pre-sale offer OR commitment to paid pilot
02Institutional Validation: Purchase Order simulation OR Letter of Intent with identified budget code
03Dual-segment validation (individual practitioners + institutional decision-makers)
04Budget pathway mapped (grants, departmental allocation, efficiency savings reinvestment)

Right person · Customer (Pays) + 12 Stakeholders

“Will you pay £X today to fix this?”

Red-flag answer: Let me think or After v2

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Demand Validation Panels

Practitioners and finance/procurement teams jointly assess value proposition

Willingness-to-Pay Testing

Structured pricing research with both user and buyer personas

Budget Pathway Mapping

Working sessions with finance teams to identify funding mechanisms (capital vs operational budgets, innovation funds, charitable grants)

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

No Economic Pull

Practitioners want solution free but won't advocate for budget

→ Research alternative funding models OR redesign value proposition

User-Buyer Misalignment

Users value highly but budget holders see no ROI

→ Research how to demonstrate ROI in buyer's language; build business case

Unsustainable Economics

Unit costs exceed willingness-to-pay by >3x

→ Research cost reduction pathways OR pivot to higher-value use case

Gate threshold · PRL 3

Minimum dual-segment validation (≥30% small entity + 1 institutional LOI) OR single-segment validation at 50%+ to progress to Experiment stage

PRL 4

Analogue Solution Efficacy

Stress Test & Validate

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Does a non-technical solution approach achieve baseline efficacy in real practitioner workflows?

01≥70% task completion rate using paper prototypes, manual processes, or no-code tools
022-week practitioner pilot with minimal technology dependencies
03Time-to-task baseline established (current state vs analogue solution)
04Practitioners can explain solution logic to peers without researcher mediation

Right person · Supply Chain + Academics

“Can we source, build, deliver this reliably?”

Red-flag answer: Can't source materials or Impossible

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Stress Test Track A

Practitioner-led paper prototyping and "Wizard of Oz" testing (manual backend simulating automated system)

Academic Modelling

University research partners model workflow impact using discrete event simulation or systems dynamics

War Room Sessions

Practitioner cohorts challenge solution under adversarial conditions to identify failure points

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Idea-Functionality Gap

Even without tech constraints, approach doesn't solve problem

→ Research fundamental flaws in solution logic; redesign from first principles

Unrealistic Expectations

Practitioners expect outcomes solution cannot deliver

→ Research achievable outcomes; reset expectations OR pivot to solution that CAN deliver

Workflow Incompatibility

Solution requires workflow changes practitioners cannot/will not make

→ Research workflow-compatible alternatives OR change management requirements

Gate threshold · PRL 4

≥70% task completion + practitioner confidence score ≥75/100 to progress to PRL 5

PRL 5

Digital Prototype Workflow Integration

Stress Test & Validate

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Does the digital minimum viable product (MVP) integrate seamlessly into real operational workflows?

01Practitioners use MVP for ≥1 full shift per week over 4-week period
02Measurable improvement: time-to-task reduced OR error rate decreased OR quality metrics improved
03Practitioners can independently troubleshoot common issues
04Practitioners explain usage to peers without vendor/researcher support

Right person · Practitioner (Daily User)

“Does this save you 2+ hours per week?”

Red-flag answer: Maybe or I'd try it

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Stress Test Track B

Co-design sprints with practitioner-researcher-technologist triads

Real-World Integration Testing

MVP deployed in operational environment (not simulation)

Iterative Refinement Cycles

Weekly feedback loops with rapid prototyping responses

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Tech-Workflow Mismatch

Digital solution works in isolation but breaks practitioner processes

→ Research UX/UI redesign with practitioner input; simplify interaction model

Adoption Friction

Learning curve exceeds time saved; practitioners revert to old methods

→ Research simpler technical approach OR enhance training/onboarding

Infrastructure Barriers

MVP requires IT infrastructure practitioners don't have access to

→ Research infrastructure-light alternatives OR build infrastructure business case

Gate threshold · PRL 5

≥80/100 on workflow integration score + measurable efficiency gain to progress to PRL 6

PRL 6

Immediate Switch Validation

Stress Test & Validate

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Would practitioners immediately adopt if solution were available today, and would they resist its removal?

01Net Promoter Score (NPS) ≥80 (would recommend to peer)
02"Mission-Critical" responses: "I would quit/switch organisations if this were removed"
03Adversarial testing: practitioners successfully defend solution to sceptical colleagues
04Tech Value Rating (TVR) ≥10/20 (composite of time saved, error reduction, satisfaction, peer recommendation)

Right person · Frontline Operator + Market

“Would you fight to keep this tool?”

Red-flag answer: Silence, shrugs, or It's okay

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Validation Gate Review

Practitioner-led decision board with multi-stakeholder representation

Red Team Challenge

Designated devil's advocate practitioners test solution under worst-case scenarios

Champion Identification

Practitioners who volunteer to advocate for adoption within their organisations

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

"Nice But Not Essential"

Practitioners like solution but won't fight for budget/adoption

→ Research what would elevate to "must have"; add killer feature OR pivot segment

Champion Fatigue

Initial enthusiasm wanes; practitioners disengage

→ Research motivational barriers; build reward structures OR improve solution stickiness

Competitive Alternative

Practitioners prefer existing solution or competitor

→ Research competitive advantage gap; differentiate OR acknowledge market position

Gate threshold · PRL 6

NPS ≥80 + TVR ≥10 + ≥3 identified champions to progress to Build stage

PRL 7

Champion Advocacy & Mobilisation

Practitioner-Led & Research

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Are practitioner champions actively mobilising internal resources and peer networks for adoption?

01≥3 practitioner champions secure internal budget allocation OR organisational commitment
02Champions co-present solution at professional conferences, networks, or internal governance meetings
03Champions recruit additional pilot sites or user cohorts independently
04Champions co-own product roadmap (not passive users)

Right person · Internal Champion

“Does your team need this yesterday to win?”

Red-flag answer: Nice to have or Eventually

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Practitioner-Led Development

Champions embedded in development team with voting rights on feature prioritisation

Research Integration

Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP)-accredited academics embedded to maintain methodological rigour

Champion Network Formalisation

Structured peer support network with defined roles (lead users, beta testers, ambassadors)

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Champion Burnout

Initial enthusiasm fades without organisational recognition

→ Research incentive structures; formalise champion role with protected time

Organisational Resistance

Champions face institutional barriers despite personal commitment

→ Research change management requirements; build stakeholder coalition

Isolation

Single champion per organisation = fragile adoption

→ Research champion network effects; recruit multiple champions per organisation

Gate threshold · PRL 7

≥3 active champions + ≥2 organisational commitments to progress to PRL 8

PRL 8

Operational Embedding

Growth & Markets

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Is the solution embedded within operational practice across multiple organisations with demonstrable sustainability?

01≥100 active users across ≥5 organisations
0290% retention rate after 3 months (churn ≤10%)
03Referral rate ≥30% (users recruit peers without vendor prompting)
04Solution integrated into organisational onboarding and training protocols
05Evidence of routine use (not project-dependent)

Right person · Community (Peer Network)

“Would you recommend this to peers?”

Red-flag answer: <30% referral rate

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Practitioner-Led Pilot Expansion

Champions lead new site onboarding (not vendor-led rollout)

Regional Cluster Activation

Geographic and sectoral hubs established for peer support

Training Curriculum Development

Practitioner-authored training materials and certification pathways

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Scaling Breaks Quality

Solution performs well with 10 users, degrades at 100+

→ Research technical architecture limitations; redesign for scale OR remain boutique

Support Infrastructure Gap

User base grows faster than support capacity; satisfaction declines

→ Research support model; build tiered support OR slow expansion

Economic Model Failure

Costs scale linearly but revenue doesn't; unsustainable unit economics

→ Research pricing model; increase willingness-to-pay OR reduce cost structure

Gate threshold · PRL 8

≥100 users + 90% retention + 30% referral + operational embedding evidence to progress to PRL 9

PRL 9

Sector Standard & Ecosystem Transformation

Promotion & Ecosystem

01 · Success criteria

Evidence required

Has the solution achieved sector standard status with measurable ecosystem effects?

01Community of practice established (conferences, user groups, professional networks)
02Training curriculum adopted by professional bodies (Royal Colleges, Chartered Institutes)
03Policy influence: solution cited in sector guidelines, standards, or regulatory frameworks
04Second-order ecosystem effects: competitors emerge, complementary solutions develop, academic literature grows
05Practitioner identity incorporates solution usage ("I'm an X practitioner who uses Y")

Right person · Market + Customer

“Is this becoming sector standard?”

Red-flag answer: No ecosystem effects visible

02 · How the Townhouse helps

Collaboration mechanisms

The convening activities that generate the evidence.

Practitioner Alumni Network

Formalised community with governance structures

IP Licensing Strategy

Open innovation models enabling derivative works and adaptations

Innovate UK Case Study Publication

Documented evidence for national innovation policy

National Standards Working Groups

Participation in sector-wide standardisation efforts

03 · When it fails

Failure modes & pivots

Each failure has a research-led pivot, not just a stop.

Plateau at Early Majority

Cannot cross chasm from early adopters to mainstream

→ Research mainstream barriers; partner with sector institutions OR accept niche dominance

Regulatory Capture

Policy/regulatory changes create barriers to continued adoption

→ Research policy advocacy requirements; build regulatory relationships

Technological Obsolescence

New technologies render solution approach outdated

→ Research next-generation architecture; plan sunset or evolution pathway

Gate threshold · PRL 9

Community formation + professional body adoption + policy influence + ecosystem effects = PRL 9 achieved

What good traction looks like

Slide 9 of 18 · The evidenceWhich validation activities actually predict adoption?

TakeawayMoney, retention, budget and daily use beat surveys, likes, press and pitch wins.

Slide 9 | 18

≥0.8010 activities

Exceptionally strong signal

Top 5% predictors

0.60–0.7910 activities

Strong signal

Top 15% predictors

0.40–0.5910 activities

Moderate signal

Above-average predictors

0.20–0.3910 activities

Weak signal

Below-average predictors

<0.205 activities

Negligible / noise

Poor predictors

01 · League table · effect size

From excellent to poor traction

Rank 1 of 45 · PRL 9

Paying customer with signed contract

1.05

Exceptionally strong signal · Top 5% predictors

Predicts: 21x higher probability of sustained revenue vs. pilot-only
Evidence base: CB Insights: Paying customer = #1 predictor of Series A success

The secret sauce: money, retention, budget and daily use sit at the top. Surveys, likes, press and pitch wins sit at the bottom, however good they feel.

Effect sizes and evidence as given in the UKBT Institute PRL framework app; confirm sources before publishing.

Hard signals, not vanity

Slide 10 of 18 · The evidenceWhat do founders chase that doesn't count, and what should they do instead?

TakeawayEvery gate needs a minimum number of hard signals: 2, then 4, 6, 8 and 10 of 10.

Slide 10 | 18

01 · Anti-patterns

Stop doing, start doing

Low-traction activities that feel like progress, and the hard signal to chase instead.

Survey "Would you use this?"

Why founders do it: Easy to execute; feels like validation

Why it fails: 90% intention-action gap; courtesy bias

→ Get £100 pre-sale commitment

Pitch competition circuit

Why founders do it: Validation theatre; trophy hunting

Why it fails: Judges ≠ customers; 5% correlation with success

→ Get paying customer

Building more features

Why founders do it: Feels productive; avoids customer facing

Why it fails: Feature bloat kills usability; ES 0.07

→ Get daily use without prompting

Social media likes/follows

Why founders do it: Dopamine hit; vanity metrics

Why it fails: <1% correlation with revenue

→ Get 30% referral rate

Advisory board (non-customers)

Why founders do it: Looks impressive; credential collecting

Why it fails: Advisors give opinions not money; ES 0.36

→ Get champion who mobilizes budget

Press coverage hunting

Why founders do it: Ego boost; "awareness"

Why it fails: 3% conversion; awareness ≠ demand

→ Get 90% retention

02 · Traction thresholds at each gate

Gate requirements with traction thresholds
PRL gate	Hard signals needed	Required activities	Pass criteria
PRL 1–3	2 of 10	· PhD researcher OR Academic validation (ES 0.83-0.58) · Willingness to pay £100+ (ES 0.81)	≥60/100 + 11/12 stakeholder YES
PRL 4–6	4 of 10	· Supply chain secured (ES 0.84) · Saves ≥2 hours/week measured (ES 0.82) · Analogue pilot ≥70% (ES 0.74) · Daily use without prompting (ES 0.89)	≥80/100 + NPS ≥80 + TVR ≥10
PRL 7	6 of 10	· Champion mobilizes budget (ES 0.92) · ≥3 champions recruiting (ES 0.76) · Peer-reviewed case study (ES 0.72)	≥90/100 + ≥1 case study
PRL 8	8 of 10	· ≥90% retention (ES 0.98) · ≥30% referral rate (ES 0.87) · 100+ users, 3+ orgs (ES 0.63)	≥90/100 + 7% WoW growth
PRL 9	10 of 10	· Paying customer (ES 1.05) - MANDATORY · All other ES ≥0.80 signals achieved	Commercial validation complete

Hard signals are the ten exceptionally strong activities (effect size ≥0.80) at the top of the league table.

Red flag matrix

Slide 11 of 18 · The gatesWhich answers should stop a project, and what do we do next?

TakeawayA red flag is an automatic gate failure: pivot or kill.

Slide 11 | 18

The rule

Any red flag at its designated PRL level = automatic gate failure.

Each red flag triggers an immediate pivot or kill decision, before more money is spent.

Definition

A red flag is any validation answer indicating insufficient problem urgency, impact or adoption intent.

Red flag decision matrix
PRL stage	Red-flag signal	What it means	Immediate action
PRL 1–2	“Occasionally / Sometimes”	Low frequency; not urgent; not top-3 pain	KILL or pivot to higher-frequency problem
PRL 2.5	“Maybe later / If we have time”	No commitment; low priority	KILL or find practitioners with urgency
PRL 3	“Let me think / After v2”	No willingness-to-pay; speculative interest	KILL or pivot value proposition
PRL 3	“Too early / Too late”	Market timing wrong	KILL or wait for market readiness
PRL 4	“Can't source / Impossible”	Technical/supply chain impossibility	KILL or research alternative approaches
PRL 5	“Maybe / I'd try it”	Marginal benefit; insufficient impact (<2 hours/week)	Redesign for 10x impact or KILL
PRL 6	“Silence / Shrugs / It's okay”	Not mission-critical; won't defend it	KILL; will never achieve adoption
PRL 7	“Nice to have / Eventually”	No urgency; won't mobilize budget	KILL or find different champion segment
PRL 8	“<30% referral rate”	Poor product-market fit; retention will collapse	Fix core value proposition or KILL
PRL 9	“No paying customers”	Business model broken; no commercial validation	Pivot business model or KILL

PRL scoring matrix

Slide 12 of 18 · The scoresHow is readiness scored?

TakeawayFive weighted dimensions; the pass mark rises 60 → 80 → 90.

Slide 12 | 18

PRL scoring matrix
Dimension	Weight	Measurement method	Gate threshold
Adoption Intent	35%	Pre-sale conversion, NPS, switch quotient, 'fight to keep it' responses	PRL 1-3: ≥60 PRL 4-6: ≥80 PRL 7-9: ≥90
Workflow Integration	30%	Time saved (≥2 hours/week), error reduction, task completion rate	All stages: measurable improvement
Champion Advocacy	20%	Number of champions, budget mobilization ability, peer recruitment	PRL 7+: ≥3 champions
Economic Signal	10%	Willingness to pay today, LTV:CAC ratio, unit economics validation	PRL 3: £100 pre-sale or LOI PRL 9: Paying customer
Ecosystem Momentum	5%	Referral velocity (≥30%), community formation, policy influence	PRL 8-9: Active community

01 · Weighting

Where the score comes from

Out of 100 points.

35

30

20

10

5

Adoption Intent
Workflow Integration
Champion Advocacy
Economic Signal
Ecosystem Momentum

Score = Σ (dimension score × weight). Adoption and workflow make up 65%: the model rewards use, not interest.

02 · Gate pass requirements

The bar rises

Later stages demand stronger evidence.

PRL 1–3

≥60/100

+ 11/12 stakeholder YES

PRL 4–6

≥80/100

+ no red flags

PRL 7–9

≥90/100

+ 7% week-on-week growth + no red flags

Tech Value Rating

Slide 13 of 18 · The scoresDoes the technology make daily work measurably better?

TakeawayTVR ≥ 10 is required to pass PRL 6.

Slide 13 | 18

Scale · threshold

1–20 scale

TVR ≥ 10 required at PRL 6

What it measures

A composite rating of practitioner value across four weighted dimensions. It answers: does this technology make daily work measurably better, enough that people would recommend it?

Tech Value Rating components
Component	Weight	Measurement	Target
Time efficiency gain	40%	Hours saved per week per practitioner	≥2 hours/week
Error/rework reduction	30%	% reduction in errors or rework cycles	≥20% reduction
Practitioner satisfaction	20%	NPS score from daily users	≥80
Peer recommendation intent	10%	Would you recommend to colleagues?	≥80% yes

01 · Worked example

Scoring a real pilot

Each component scores 10 when it exactly meets its target (capped at 20). TVR is the weighted sum, so 10 means ‘targets met on average’.

Time efficiency gain

Measured 3 hours/week · target ≥2 hours/week

15.0 × 40% = 6.00

Error/rework reduction

Measured 25 % reduction · target ≥20% reduction

12.5 × 30% = 3.75

Practitioner satisfaction

Measured 82 NPS · target ≥80

10.3 × 20% = 2.05

Peer recommendation intent

Measured 85 % yes · target ≥80% yes

10.6 × 10% = 1.06

TVR = 6.00 + 3.75 + 2.05 + 1.06

12.9 ≥ 10 ✓

Parity governance

Slide 14 of 18 · The governanceHow far may technology go before practitioners catch up?

TakeawayPRL must lead or equal TRL. TRL 6 is a hard gate.

Slide 14 | 18

01 · Minimum PRL by TRL

The staircase

Technology may only climb as far as practitioners have validated.

PRL 1

PRL 4

PRL 5

PRL 7

PRL 8

TRL 1TRL 2TRL 3TRL 4TRL 5TRL 6TRL 7TRL 8TRL 9

Critical integration principle

PRL must lead or equal TRL at all times.

TRL answers “can we build it?” PRL answers “should we build it?”

02 · Governance rule

PRL–TRL parity

Block rules applied at each technology milestone.

PRL-TRL parity governance
TRL milestone	Min PRL	Enforcement rationale	Block rule
TRL 1-3Laboratory Research	PRL 1-2	Problem must be practitioner-validated before lab work	Cannot start TRL 1 if PRL <1
TRL 4-5Prototype Development	PRL 4-5	Cannot develop tech prototype until analogue solution works	Cannot start TRL 4 if PRL <4
TRL 6Demonstration	PRL ≥5	No technology demonstration without real-world utility validation	HARD GATE: TRL 6 BLOCKED if PRL <5
TRL 7-8Pilot/Production	PRL 7+	Cannot enter production without documented practitioner impact	Cannot start TRL 7 if PRL <7
TRL 9Commercial Deployment	PRL 8-9	Cannot scale commercially without sustained multi-site adoption	Cannot reach TRL 9 if PRL <8

03 · Three-framework gates

PRL · TRL · CRL integration

At each milestone all three readiness levels must be met.

PRL, TRL and CRL integration gates
Milestone	TRL	CRL	PRL	Rule
Concept validation	TRL 1–2	CRL 1–2	PRL 1–3	11/12 stakeholder YES or KILL
Prototype development	TRL 4	CRL 3–4	PRL 4	All 3 frameworks or KILL
⚠ Demonstration gate	TRL 6	CRL 5	PRL ≥5	HARD GATE: cannot proceed if any is below threshold
Pilot / trial	TRL 7–8	CRL 6–7	PRL 7	All 3 frameworks or KILL
Commercial launch	TRL 9	CRL 8–9	PRL 8–9	All 3 at level 9 = sustainable success

Failure mode detection

Slide 15 of 18 · The evidenceWhich failures does each framework catch, and how early?

TakeawayPRL catches every failure mode, in parallel and early.

Slide 15 | 18

TRL catches

1/13

+1 partially

CRL catches

3/13

+7 partially

PRL catches

13/13

All failure modes, in parallel

Failure mode detection
Failure type	TRL	CRL	PRL catches at	How	Cost saved
Technical impossibility	Catches TRL 1–4	Misses Misses	Catches PRL 1–4	Academics + technologists in the Townhouse	£500K–£2M (95% reduction)
Market doesn't exist	Misses Misses	Catches CRL 2–4	Catches PRL 2–3	Practitioner cohort validation (≥10 required)	£200K+ (weeks vs months)
Poor business model	Misses Misses	Catches CRL 7–9	Catches PRL 3, 6, 7, 9	12-stakeholder economic stress test	£500K–£1M+ (95% reduction)
Practitioners won't adopt	Misses Misses	Partially Partial	Catches PRL 5–9	Direct end-user validation; retention tracking	Core PRL purpose
Lab-to-field gap	Partially TRL 5–6	Misses Misses	Catches PRL 4–5	Analogue pilots before tech build	£200K+ (prototype avoided)
Regulatory barriers	Misses Misses	Partially CRL 6–7	Catches PRL 3	Lawyers identify early in the Townhouse	£2M+ (2–3 years earlier)
Hidden costs kill margins	Misses Misses	Partially CRL 8	Catches PRL 3	Finance/procurement expose TCO	£500K–£1M+ (before build)
Can't mobilise budget	Misses Misses	Partially CRL 6–7	Catches PRL 6–7	Champion advocacy test; budget holder validation	£750K+ (18–24 months earlier)
Wrong customer segment	Misses Misses	Partially CRL 5–6	Catches PRL 2–3	Practitioner vs budget holder clarity	£300K+ (12–18 months earlier)
Pricing model broken	Misses Misses	Catches CRL 5–7	Catches PRL 3	Economic signal test; willingness-to-pay	£200K+ (6–12 months earlier)
Procurement barriers	Misses Misses	Partially CRL 6–7	Catches PRL 3	Procurement specialists in the Townhouse	£500K+ (12–24 months earlier)
Sales cycle kills runway	Misses Misses	Partially CRL 6–7	Catches PRL 3	Budget cycle mapping with finance	Prevents fatal cash crisis
Adoption fatigue	Misses Misses	Misses Misses	Catches PRL 8	90% retention metric; 30% referral tracking	Unique to PRL

● Catches◐ Partially○ MissesFigures from the FORTRESS PRL framework v2.0

The business case

Slide 16 of 18 · The evidenceWhat does practitioner-led validation save?

Takeaway£10K–£20K in weeks, versus £1M+ over years.

Slide 16 | 18

01 · Cost-benefit

Weeks, not years

Validating with all three frameworks in parallel, in the Townhouse.

TRL only

Technical issues only

Timeline

12–18 months

Investment

£500K–£2M

TRL + CRL

Technical + commercial (sequential)

Timeline

18–36 months

Investment

£1M–£3M

TRL + CRL + PRL

All issues (parallel)

Timeline

1–4 weeks

Investment

£10K–£20K

02 · UK R&D impact targets

From baseline to target

FORTRESS + PRL targets against the UK baseline.

Projects reaching production

UK baseline13%

PRL target68%

Adoption post-launch

UK baseline30%

PRL target88%

Overall failure rate

UK baseline70–87%

PRL target<20%

Average failure cost

Baseline £500K+

£9K (kill fee)

Patents per £1M R&D

Baseline 1

10

Time to PRL 6 validation

Baseline N/A

8 weeks

These are programme targets from the FORTRESS PRL framework, not measured outcomes.

PRL in the UK ecosystem

Slide 17 of 18 · The contextHow does PRL fit existing UK R&D frameworks?

TakeawayPRL plugs into TRL, IRL, Stage-Gate, KTP, Catapults and Smart Grants.

Slide 17 | 18

Integration with the UK R&D ecosystem
Framework	PRL integration point	Strategic alignment
TRL (NASA/ESA)	PRL–TRL parity rule enforced	Prevents technology-push failures
IRL (Innovate UK)	PRL 6 = IRL 4 (market-validated traction)	Bridges lab-to-market transition
Stage-Gate (Cooper)	PRL 1–3 = Gate 0; PRL 4–6 = Gates 1–2; PRL 7–9 = Gates 3–5	Enhances existing portfolio management
Innovate UK Smart Grants	PRL 5+ required for Catapult acceleration	Public funding tied to practitioner validation
KTP	PRL 7+ enables practitioner–academic co-supervision	Academic validation embedded in scale
Catapult Network	PRL 4–6 testing infrastructure; PRL 7+ scale-up support	Leverages national infrastructure

01 · Core definitions

Speak the language

Practitioner

The operational end user who directly interacts with the technology in their professional workflow (not the budget holder or IT implementer, unless they are also the daily user).

Champion

A practitioner who uses the solution ≥4× a week, recruits ≥2 peer users and advocates for budget allocation.

Townhouse

FORTRESS R&D's multi-stakeholder convening space where 12 diverse stakeholder types validate innovations through collaborative stress testing.

Red flag

Any validation answer indicating insufficient problem urgency, impact or adoption intent. It triggers an immediate pivot or kill decision.

In one line

“Never skip a voice. Test simple before tech. Co-create, don't dictate. Share everything.”

Technology readiness answers ‘Can we build it?’ Practitioner readiness answers ‘Should we build it?’ The latter is the more fundamental question for UK R&D excellence.

Play the Townhouse Climb

Slide 18 of 18 · PlayCan you tell real practitioner pull from polite interest?

TakeawaySpot the red flag, then spend your runway on hard signals, not vanity.

Slide 18 | 18

The Townhouse Climb

Take an idea up the building.

You have learned the model. Now use it. Ten gates, from PRL 1 to PRL 9: at each one you interview a practitioner and decide where to spend your limited runway.

Start the climb →

1 · Spot the red flag

Three practitioners answer the gate question. Which answer should stop you?

2 · Spend your runway

Pick the activities to chase. Hard signals clear the gate; vanity metrics don't.

Prefer to go deeper?

Walk a worked case study through every gate, or enter your own innovation.