Research institutions have made meaningful investments in Gap Fund and Accelerator Programs (GAP) to advance technologies, support entrepreneurs, attract investment, and accelerate research commercialization. As these programs become more connected within broader GAP systems, we have an opportunity to better understand and communicate the full value they create.
This is becoming increasingly important as institutions and their partners look for evidence that their investments are producing meaningful results. We need to demonstrate impact to institutional leadership, advancement, donors, foundations, state governments, industry, investors, and other stakeholders whose continued engagement is essential to sustaining and expanding these GAP systems.
But are we consistently communicating the right outcomes (or setting expectations) to the right audiences?
At COVERGENCE 2026, we reiterated a framework from our Mind the GAP Report that organizes GAP impact into four overlapping horizons. The framework recognizes that GAP systems generate different forms of value over time, from early technology validation and commercialization activity to ecosystem development, external capital attraction, and long-term financial and societal returns.
Importantly, these horizons provide a picture of the collective impact of a GAP system, not a universal set of performance expectations for every program operating within it.
Four Horizons of GAP Impact
The Mind the GAP Report identifies four broad areas of impact that emerge over different, often overlapping periods of time.
Horizon 1: Validation and Commercialization (0–2 years). Early outcomes include technology, market, and team validation; proof-of-concept development; prototypes and pilot projects; intellectual property development; and commercialization activity through licensing or startup formation. These activities help reduce uncertainty and move promising research toward practical application.
Horizon 2: Ecosystem Development (1–5 years). GAP programs also act as magnets contributing to the people, relationships, and institutional capabilities that support innovation. This includes entrepreneurial talent and leadership development, faculty, clinician, and student engagement, cross-disciplinary collaboration, stronger connections among institutional units, and the development of regional innovation ecosystems.
Horizon 3: Follow-on Capital and Strategic Partners (2–5 years). As opportunities advance, GAP systems can attract additional funding and engagement from government, industry, foundations, angel investors, venture capital, and other partners. These relationships provide not only capital but also expertise, market connections, and pathways for continued development and commercialization.
Horizon 4: ROI and Sustainability (5–12+ years). Longer-term outcomes can include financial returns, licensing revenue, equity appreciation, reinvestment, sustained institutional and GAP support, economic development, and broader societal benefits. These outcomes are important to the long-term value and sustainability of GAP systems, but often require substantially more time to materialize.
These timelines are illustrative estimates from program launch, not fixed benchmarks. The horizons overlap, and outcomes can emerge at different times depending on the program, technology, institution, and ecosystem. They also do not dictate when external partners should become involved. In many cases, early engagement from industry, investors, and other partners contributes directly to success across multiple horizons, such as mentorship, evaluatory support, and milestone-setting.
Aligning Impact Expectations With Program Objectives
One of the most important implications of this framework is that not every GAP program should be evaluated against the same impact objectives.
Consider the differences between a university proof-of-concept (POC) program and a university venture fund.
A POC program is primarily designed to reduce technical and commercial uncertainty, validate opportunities, and advance technologies toward licensing, startup formation, or additional development. Its success should be evaluated through outcomes such as addressing informed validation milestones, commercialization progress, and the ability to prepare opportunities for downstream engagement.
A university venture fund, by comparison, is investing in emerging companies with an expectation of financial value creation over time. While it may also support institutional commercialization and ecosystem development, financial performance and portfolio returns are more directly connected to its investment model and objectives.
Both programs can contribute meaningfully to the same GAP system, but they do so in different ways.
Leading with financial ROI as the primary measure of success for a POC program can establish the wrong expectations with institutional leadership and stakeholders. It can undervalue the program’s intended contribution, particularly when the technologies it supports may require years of additional development before meaningful financial returns are possible.
The reverse is also true. A university venture fund should not be evaluated exclusively on the number of entrepreneurs engaged or technologies assessed when its investment mandate includes generating financial returns.
The Mind the GAP Report reinforces the importance of aligning measures with program design, stage of engagement, available resources, and institutional objectives. Rather than prescribing one set of metrics, the report presents a range of indicators that institutions can select and apply based on their circumstances.
For those managing individual GAP programs, the four horizons provide a way to identify and lead with the outcomes most relevant to their responsibilities. For institutional leaders overseeing multiple programs, the framework offers a broader view of how those contributions combine to create system-level impact.
Communicating Value to Different Stakeholders
The same principle applies to how we engage and communicate with stakeholders.
University leadership may be interested in how GAP systems advance institutional research priorities, strengthen commercialization capabilities, and contribute to long-term sustainability. Advancement teams, donors, and foundations may be particularly interested in how their support enables promising technologies, develops entrepreneurial talent, or advances societal outcomes.
State governments and economic development organizations may emphasize business formation, workforce development, and regional economic activity. Industry partners and investors may be interested in access to emerging technologies, stronger investment pipelines, and opportunities to engage with research and entrepreneurial teams earlier in the commercialization process.
These stakeholders can support the same GAP system while valuing different aspects of its impact.
Our challenge is to communicate the full picture of GAP impact while emphasizing the outcomes most relevant to each stakeholder and partner.
This requires more than assembling an annual report of program activity. It means helping stakeholders understand what individual programs are designed to accomplish, how those programs contribute to a larger system, and how their participation can support the outcomes they care about.
It also requires setting realistic expectations about when different forms of value are likely to emerge.
Building a Stronger Case for GAP Systems
As we work to strengthen GAP systems, we need to become more intentional about capturing and communicating their impact.
The Mind the GAP Report recognizes that many programs face limitations in staffing, data systems, and historical reporting. Not every institution can immediately measure every outcome across all four horizons. Consistent tracking of a focused set of relevant indicators can still provide meaningful evidence of progress and help establish a foundation for more comprehensive impact measurement over time.
The opportunity is to build from individual program reporting toward a more complete understanding of how GAP investments contribute to institutional commercialization capacity, entrepreneurial development, external engagement, and long-term value creation.
Through our Mind the GAP Initiative, innovosource will continue developing research and practical approaches to measuring and communicating these outcomes. Through GAP COA, we look forward to working with the community to share experiences, refine approaches, and strengthen how we demonstrate the value of GAP programs and systems.
If we want to build sustained institutional and external commitment to GAP systems, we need to communicate not only what they accomplish, but why those outcomes matter, how they contribute to the larger system, and when stakeholders should reasonably expect to see them.
The four horizons give us a framework for telling that more complete story.
