Problems with the conversion of Research Work into a Product

In the last few months, I have interacted with researchers who have developed good technology and tried to convert their work into products. At least, in three cases I found the researcher had no clue that their work is far from being a product. Let me first describe the research work and the intended product. Then explain what is missing if they to be converted to products.

1. A neurosurgeon developed a prototype (with a wooden structure) that will detect the rate of accumulation of CSF fluid from the patient. If the fluid discharge is high, it will send an SMS to the doctor through a GSM Link. The doctor has tried it with patients, but I didn't see any clinical report. He reached out to me to manufacture this unit, and I told him this being a Medical Device and it is going to be used in ICU, we have to redesign the unit with material that can be sterilised and needs a redesign and the sensor that is used for measuring the fluid has to be calibrated and told him it will cost time and effort to convert into a product. He refused to accept that the product needed redesign and finally just left without proceeding further
2. This is related to technology developed for EVs & Hybrid Vehicles and the company developers have developed a limited prototype (one) and have gone to the market to sell the technology. Many clients started the discussion but didn't go further as they wanted to see the market validation of the product. What I noticed was with different motors and different vehicle architectures, they don't have structured processes and instruments to evaluate the different configurations and most of the time struggle to integrate by trial and error. So, prospects tend to delay the decision to use their products
3. Last week, I got a request for manufacturing support for an esoteric material-based family of sensors from a Europe-based start-up. But when we looked at the first set of documents, it was a contract agreement for selling the patent for 4.0 million euros. The founder said their technology is great and was willing to discuss if we signed the document for buying the patent. After a little bit of digging, other than some research on the material, there is no proof that this idea will work as a product. However, the founder wants money before the research work is even proven for its efficacy.

In all the cases What I see are the following,

• Starts with casual research, and after 3 years, researchers think it can be easily converted to a product, which is a fallacy. The last one was hilarious as the founder said this technology can work with ML & AI, and the startup will own that and want someone else to take the risk of manufacturing the hardware!
• If the final idea of the research is a product, then the research should focus on material and process to ensure the product can be realised. (I met a start-up that has built a surgical tool with 3D metal printing. Basically, thin concentric titanium tubes of 1 and 2 mm. When I told them manufacturing in large volumes is difficult. The researcher said that is the manufacturers' problem and his prototype is proven! When I did a back-of-paper calculation the product would be 5X expensive if 3D metal printing is used and I know this will be a non-starter
• The researcher never trusts anyone so offering a solution that will work is ruled out because of this
• Most medical device researchers have no idea about the market and how a product has to be sold. They think there will be a mad rush to buy their product. In fact, I asked one of the researchers who happened to be a doctor whether a fellow doctor in the hospital would endorse his product, and he said no.
• Remember, many DST-sponsored projects have faced the same fate. My observation is any research work that has a PhD as one of the outputs tends to be devoid of practical use. I know that this is a strong statement, but I will be happy if I am proved wrong.