A great potential FRO brings together a transformative idea with a strong team, and is highly enabled by the FRO model (or rather, would not exist otherwise).

In addition to the criteria that we use to evaluate FRO proposals, we look for a few key characteristics. The project should cross a technology inflection point, achieving greater than 10x improvement in an underlying capability — one that typically doesn't have a market itself. It should require a directed, non-academic, team-based effort to solve at medium scale. It should enable many important new applications or commercial markets to be discovered. It should be quantitatively roadmappable as a uniquely scalable path within a technology landscape. It should build from a creative, non-consensus understanding or cross-disciplinary synthesis. And it should be likely to produce or inspire follow-on efforts by others.

The Idea

Transformative theory of change. Does the proposal identify a significant bottleneck that, if solved, would address a very important societal or scientific need? Is the bottleneck both necessary and sufficient to achieve high impact? Is the theory of change well-articulated, logical, and transformative with measurable outcomes? Are the anticipated outcomes likely to generate multiplier effects — a scaled revolution?

The strongest FRO concepts start with an unusually sharply defined, time-relevant technology problem, or at least a very clear answer to "what are you building." It should be expressed as a concrete and ideally quantitative build target whose solution will unlock a step-change for an entire field. Nonspecific claims that "data integration" is needed in the field, or that what's required is "a suite of new tools" rather than a single transformative product, can be yellow flags for FROs, even if their open-endedness would be perfectly appropriate for a more traditional institute or center.

Well-defined product and ecosystem. Is the proposed product — whether a dataset, tool, protocol, or process — clearly described? Are the intended users or beneficiaries identified and aligned with the product? Is there a concrete strategy to cultivate and sustain a broader ecosystem around the product, engaging early adopters and establishing partnerships?

Well-scoped, actionable plan. The technical approach should be ambitious but realistic, with specific, actionable milestones and deliverables. The scope of technical work should balance feasibility with high-impact goals. There should be a strong operational plan, including managing budgets, hiring, and logistics.

Transition plan. Is there a well-thought-out plan to ensure the project's outcomes will be disseminated, used, or sustained after the FRO ends? Are the proposed pathways for post-FRO impact realistic and aligned with the goals? Does the team demonstrate a clear understanding of the relevant landscape and ecosystem? If we really struggle to see how scaled impact could occur within roughly ten years of the start, we may not pursue the FRO.

The Fit

Counterfactual FRO fit. This is one of the most important and most subtle questions we ask. Does the proposal clearly justify why the FRO model — focused, time-bound, coordinated teamwork — is the best mechanism for addressing the problem? Would this project likely not happen or not succeed in academic, venture-backed, or industry settings?

The counterfactual question is hard to answer definitively for many FROs because there exist VCs and high-net-worth individuals who fund very speculative startups. Clearly enumerating the incentives of other players in the ecosystem and explaining how the FRO's scope of work has been carefully crafted to be catalytic for them — rather than duplicative of them — can help answer this question.

The Team

The quality of the founding team is critical for making a FRO happen. Successful founders can come from diverse backgrounds, from first job out of a PhD to serial startup founder to senior academic.

We’ve found some consistent features in strong founders.

• They’re driven by a specific and well-defined bottleneck, and are not overly anchored on a specific path to solving it—they’re open to finding the best one.
• They have strong technical grounding and an intrinsic aesthetic drive to solve the problem technically — this keeps them focused. They are equally capable of disseminating their technology narrative to the outside world in a high-level, non-technical way.
• They recognize and recruit co-founders who cover their blind spots. They can recruit exceptional talent from both industry and academia. They build and maintain network relationships that unlock talent, capital, and partnerships. They are eager to learn techniques from other sectors when needed.
• FRO founders require the ability to make fast, high-stakes decisions, ship real-world results before they feel perfect, and keep pace with rapid growth. Because most academic scientists have little formal training here, we strongly encourage executive coaching for all founders and early hiring of operations and senior technical leads with industry experience.

Here are some questions we ask ourselves when evaluating founding teams:

Ability to build the organization. Does the team possess the necessary expertise and skills to lead and execute? Will they be able to recruit the caliber of talent needed to achieve the stated goals?