Commercialization Grants & Awards

Exceptional (3)

Moderate (2)

Insufficient (1)

Team (20%)

At least 1 applicant meets CSM faculty requirements. Applicants bring complementary expertise (business, R&D, regulatory ..etc). Roles are clearly defined. Describes a credible long-term commercialization vision.

At least 1 applicant meets CSM faculty requirements. Applicants bring appropriate scientific expertise but limited commercialization experience. Describes a long-term commercialization vision but lacks specificity or clarity. 

Applicant does not meet CSM faculty requirements and/or does not articulate a long-term vision. Team lacks expertise required for product commercialization. 

Product (20%)

Applicant clearly defines how their research is innovative in addressing a specific target problem/end user. There is clear differentiation from current standard of care or competing solutions.

Applicant describes the innovation of their product and its role in addressing their target problem/end user, but lacks clarity. 

Applicant does not appropriately describe their innovation/target problem/end user. And/or does not align with the intended TRL of the funding program (2-5).

Market (20%)

Applicant clearly describes competitive landscape, including direct and indirect competitors. The applicant articulates a defined niche or strategic positioning. Evidence of traction (e.g., funding secured, partnerships, stakeholder validation, customer discovery) supports commercial potential.

Applicant identifies a portion of potential competitors and proposes a general end user. Limited evidence of external validation or traction provided.  

Applicant does not adequately identify competitors, competitive advantage, or market positioning. No evidence of market validation or demand is presented.

Intellectual Property (20%)

Applicant has secured intellectual property protection (e.g., filed or issued patents) or provides a clear, credible strategy for protecting and managing IP. Ownership and commercialization pathway are well understood.

Applicant demonstrates general awareness of IP considerations and commercialization pathways but provides limited detail regarding protection strategy or ownership.

Applicant does not appropriately cover their IP strategy. 

Use of Funds (20%)

Applicant presents a clearly defined, milestone-driven plan for use of funds. The proposed activities are likely to meaningfully advance the project toward commercialization.

Applicant outlines proposed use of funds that only broadly supports commercialization and/or lack clarity.

Applicant poorly defines proposed use of funds, use of funds are not aligned with commercialization objectives, or lacks sufficient detail to assess feasibility or impact.

Exceptional (5)

Great (3)

Insufficient (0)

Commercialization Dedication 

The nominee holds a founder or co-founder role in a medical research company and is actively engaged in commercializing their research (ex: pitching at events/to researchers, applying for grants, conducting product market fit research).  

The nominee holds a founder or co-founder role in a medical research company and is engaged in commercializing their research. 

The nominee does not hold a founder or a co-founder in a medical research company. 

Commercialization Progress

The nominee demonstrates measurable advancements towards commercializing (ex: incorporation, filling for a patent, developing a prototype, securing grant or investment funding, regulatory affairs discussions/mapping/fillings). Technology modality to be taken into consideration (ex: drugs or invasive medical devices are more challenging to commercialize compared to digital health)

The nominee demonstrates early promise of commercialization (ex: company website, participating in early stage mentorship groups, university announcement, linkedin posts, disclosing to innovate calgary). Technology modality to be taken into consideration (ex: drugs or invasive medical devices are more challenging to commercialize compared to digital health)

The nominee efforts align more with an academic researcher than an entrepreneur (ex: only academics outputs, no company formation) 

Impact Potential 

The nominee’s research targets an unmet health challenge with a solution that clearly benefits intended end users (ex: rare disease research, rural diagnostics, alzheimer’s treatment/diagnostics) OR research targets a large market with considerable end user impact a way not addressed by competitors (ex: diabetics, age tech, fertility tech). 

The nominee’s research targets a health challenge and/or shows potential to benefit a large market of end users but areas of pathway to market are unclear or still high-level. 

The nominee’s research is in a highly competitive field and does not demonstrate competitive differentiation and/or would target a small portion of end users outside of addressing an unmet health challenge. 

Exceptional (5)

Great (3)

Insufficient (0)

Commercialization Dedication 

The nominee holds a founder or co-founder role in a medical research company and is actively engaged in commercializing their research (ex: pitching at events/to researchers, applying for grants, conducting product market fit research).  

The nominee holds a founder or co-founder role in a medical research company and is engaged in commercializing their research. 

The nominee does not hold a founder or a co-founder in a medical research company. 

Commercialization Progress

The nominee demonstrates measurable advancements towards commercializing (ex: incorporation, filling for a patent, developing a prototype, securing grant or investment funding, regulatory affairs discussions/mapping/fillings). Technology modality to be taken into consideration (ex: drugs or invasive medical devices are more challenging to commercialize compared to digital health)

The nominee demonstrates early promise of commercialization (ex: company website, participating in early stage mentorship groups, university announcement, linkedin posts, disclosing to innovate calgary). Technology modality to be taken into consideration (ex: drugs or invasive medical devices are more challenging to commercialize compared to digital health)

The nominee efforts align more with an academic researcher than an entrepreneur (ex: only academics outputs, no company formation) 

Impact Potential 

The nominee’s research targets an unmet health challenge with a solution that clearly benefits intended end users (ex: rare disease research, rural diagnostics, alzheimer’s treatment/diagnostics) OR research targets a large market with considerable end user impact a way not addressed by competitors (ex: diabetics, age tech, fertility tech). BONUS: This individual has also demonstrated a passion for supporting gender equity, promoting women’s advancement and making a lasting impact on Alberta’s health ecosystem (ex: visible active presence in health entrepreneurship ecosystem, speaking at events).

The nominee’s research targets a health challenge and/or shows potential to benefit a large market of end users but areas of pathway to market are unclear or still high-level. 

The nominee’s research is in a highly competitive field and does not demonstrate competitive differentiation and/or would target a small portion of end users outside of addressing an unmet health challenge. 

Exceptional (5)

Great (3)

Insufficient (0)

Direct Commercialization Support 

The nominee consistently supports commercialization efforts for multiple CSM founders (ex: mentorship, operational support, advisory boards, grants, donations, judging pitch competitions). 

Occasionally supports CSM founder commercialization efforts (ex: supports infrequently or is focused on one particular CSM founder). 

Does not meaningfully support CSM founder (ex: commercialization support not related to medical research, no evidence provided of support)

Ecosystem Engagement & Participation

The nominee shows active and regular participation at commercialization events (ex: attendance at pitch competitions, conferences, connecting peers within the ecosystem, speaker or panelist)

Participates in commercialization occasionally. 

Rarely participates in commercialization events. 

Ecosystem Impact & Community Building 

The nominee showed evidence of longer term contributions to strengthening the culture, connectivity and/or capacity of medical research commercialization at the CSM (ex: cross-department collaborations, launched or sustained commercialization programming, created founder networks, bridging academia and industry). 

The nominee has supported ecosystem-building efforts but impact remains localized or early-stage (ex: coordinating events, connecting peers informally, contributing to commercialization discussions and supporting collaborating efforts). 

The nominee shows no evidence of commercialization specific ecosystem building.