Dear Natasha Wendy Anita Mazzone

Over the past few months I have been exploring the innovation funding opportunities available in South Africa while developing my project, the Automated Vibe Coder. During this process I have gained a much better understanding of how innovation funding is structured, and I wanted to share an observation that may be worth considering.

One of the organisations I investigated was the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA). TIA clearly plays an important role in supporting technology innovation in South Africa, with programmes ranging from proof-of-concept through to technology development and commercialisation. Their funding framework is well structured and designed to reduce technical and commercial risk.

However, after reviewing the application requirements and supporting documentation, it became clear that applicants are expected to present far more than just a promising idea. A credible project plan, technology description, financial information, commercialisation strategy, intellectual property considerations and detailed execution planning are all part of the process. For many independent innovators who are still developing an early proof of concept, this can be a significant hurdle.

I also investigated the Government's Innovation Fund through Innovation Bridge, hoping it might provide a pathway for projects at the very earliest stages of development. Unfortunately, I have not yet received a response to my enquiry, so I remain uncertain about the current accessibility of the programme for independent innovators.

This experience has made me wonder whether there is a gap in the innovation ecosystem.

Many transformative technologies begin with a single individual working evenings and weekends, often from a spare room or garage, using personal savings and whatever equipment they can afford. At this stage there is usually no established company, no turnover and no commercial product—only an idea that has shown enough promise to justify further development.

Ironically, this is often the point where relatively modest funding could have the greatest impact. A workstation, specialised hardware or access to technical resources may be enough to determine whether an idea progresses into a viable technology or simply reaches a dead end through lack of resources.

This challenge is not unique to South Africa. Around the world, public innovation programmes have had to balance supporting bold ideas with protecting public funds. As application processes become more rigorous, they naturally favour applicants who already have established organisations, experienced grant writers and the administrative capacity to prepare comprehensive proposals. Those requirements are understandable, but they can unintentionally make it more difficult for independent innovators with promising technologies to reach the point where they become investment-ready.

I fully appreciate the need for accountability and responsible use of public funds. At the same time, I believe there is value in creating pathways that specifically support early-stage proof-of-concept innovation, where the objective is not to fund a business, but to determine whether a promising technology deserves the opportunity to become one.

My own project is at exactly that stage. I have already demonstrated a working proof of concept and validated key technical aspects of the approach. What is now limiting progress is not the concept itself, but access to the computing hardware needed to continue development and testing.

Perhaps there is an opportunity to strengthen support for innovators during this early phase, where relatively small investments can help determine whether the next significant South African technology succeeds or never has the chance to develop.

Kind regards,

Tyrell John van den Heever