When we set out to design The Innovation Races, the first question was not how to run a programme. It was a narrower and more useful one: what, precisely, are we trying to fix? Saudi Arabia does not lack ambition, capital or research. What it has lacked is a reliable path that carries a piece of science from the laboratory bench to a company an investor can responsibly back. Designing that path well matters more than any single feature of the programme, so it is worth explaining the thinking behind the structure we chose.
The short version is this. We built two races rather than one because the journey from early research to an investable company is not one problem but two, and the two are different enough that a single programme cannot serve both without serving neither well. This piece sets out why, and what each race is designed to do.
One programme, two problems
A venture at the earliest stages of readiness needs something quite different from a venture that is nearly investable. The first needs time, patient development and a low barrier to entry: a place to mature its technology, test its assumptions and reach a defensible level of evidence, without a clock forcing the pace. The second needs the opposite: intensity, a defined cohort of peers, in-person events and a concentrated build, because the work of turning a near-ready venture into a fundable company rewards focus and pressure.
A single annual cohort cannot hold both. Open it wide enough to admit early research and you dilute the intensity the advanced ventures need. Keep it tight enough for the advanced ventures and you exclude the early research that should be feeding the system in the first place. We concluded that the honest response was to stop treating these as one programme. Hence two races, each built around the readiness band it serves, joined by a single crossing point.
The crossing that decides everything: TRL 6 to 7
If there is one place where deep tech ventures most often fail, it is the move from a working prototype to something the market will adopt and an investor will fund. In technology-readiness terms it is the step from TRL 6 to TRL 7, and it is widely described as the valley of death: the point at which the science is proven but the company is not yet real. Grant funding has usually run out, and commercial capital has not yet arrived.
The boundary between the two races is the hardest moment in a deep tech venture, made explicit.
We did not want the structure to gloss over that crossing. We wanted it built around it. So the two races meet precisely there. The Qualifying Races carry a venture up to a verified TRL 6. The Championship Races begin at TRL 7. The boundary between them is not administrative. It is the hardest moment in the journey, made visible, with committed support placed across it rather than left to chance.
The Qualifying Races: an always-on feeder
The Qualifying Races are virtual, self-paced and open year-round, for ventures between TRL 4 and TRL 6. There is no fixed cohort and no annual deadline. A team progresses at the pace its science allows, which for deep tech is often measured in years rather than months, and the barrier to entry is deliberately low: entry is free to the team, with assessment access funded by Partners.
The purpose is twofold. First, to give early ventures a real place to develop, rather than asking them to compete before they are ready. Second, to build a broad, continuously refreshed feeder for the system as a whole, so the strongest early ventures are identified early and carried forward on merit. Progression is earned, not allocated: a team graduates by reaching a verified TRL 6, assessed through TACTIC, our assessment engine. There is no fixed quota of graduates. In any given year, as many teams advance as genuinely reach the bar.
The Championship Races: a time-boxed build
The Championship Races are the opposite shape by design: an annual, time-boxed cohort for the strongest ventures at TRL 7 to TRL 9. Where the Qualifying Races are patient, the Championship Races are intensive. The cohort is small, at ten finalist places, and the build is concentrated, structured around in-person events that punctuate periods of focused work between them.
The reasoning is the same as before, in reverse. A venture close to investable benefits from a defined cohort of peers, from the pressure of real deadlines, and from the presence of mentors and potential backers in the room. None of that survives if the group is too large or the timeline open-ended. So the Championship Races are kept deliberately tight, and access to them is earned.
The two races, side by side
| Dimension | The Qualifying Races | The Championship Races |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness | TRL 4 to 6 | TRL 7 to 9 |
| Format | Virtual, self-paced | In-person events with focused build between them |
| Cadence | Always open, year-round | Annual and time-boxed (Race 2027 is the first cycle) |
| Entry | Free to enter, Partner-funded assessment | Earned: via the Qualifier Event, or direct entry at TRL 7+ |
| Cohort | No fixed cohort, rolling | Up to 40 teams to 10 finalist places |
| The goal | Reach a verified TRL 6 | Become investable, and be backed |
Where the two races meet, and how teams are judged
The two races are joined at the Qualifier Event. Graduates of the Qualifying Races arrive there alongside ventures that have entered the Championship Races directly at TRL 7 or above, and together they compete for the cohort. Up to forty teams contest ten finalist places. This is the single point at which the always-on feeder and the annual championship meet, and it is where merit, not tenure, decides who proceeds.
One design decision inside the Championship Races is worth stating plainly, because it shapes the culture of the cohort. Teams are ranked on their own progress against their own assessed starting point, not against one another, and the finalist cohort is not culled once formed. The race allocates backing; it is not a contest for survival. That choice is deliberate: a team can help a peer without harming its own standing, so genuine peer support and honest competition can exist side by side.
What the structure is built to deliver
The benefit of separating the two races is that each can be honestly fit for purpose. For early ventures, there is somewhere to develop at the right pace, with a low barrier and a clear, earned route forward. For advanced ventures, there is a concentrated build with the cohort, the mentors and the backing that stage requires. For institutions and Partners, there is a single, continuously assessed pipeline that spans the full readiness range, with progression governed by evidence rather than impression. And for the ecosystem, there is a structure that does not quietly skip the hardest part of the journey but is organised around it.
None of this is unique to one country, and we have borrowed openly from models that work elsewhere. What is specific to the Kingdom is the need: a deep research base, a clear national ambition, and a missing path between the two. The two-race structure is our attempt to build that path deliberately, rather than leave it to chance.
To see how the two races fit together in practice, explore The Innovation Races, or get in touch.