Why Techno-Economic Analysis Matters for Your Venture and the Founder Traits That Get Funded in Biotech
Carolina Villa spent a decade scaling bioprocesses in industry: first at DSM, the Dutch multinational known for its fermentation and biotechnology work, then at CJ CheilJedang, a South Korean food and biotechnology company and one of the world's largest producers of fermentation-based bioproducts. She has since moved to the investor side, where she's now a Principal at Nucleus Capital, supporting pre-seed to early-stage deeptech climate startups.
In 2025, Carolina shared a widely-read funding napkin on biotechnology, emphasizing why techno-economic analysis (TEA) matters and how to apply it in every stage of startup funds from pre-seed to series A and key lessons on where to start and what biofounders often get wrong about it. (Read it here)
The iGEM Innovation team sat down with Carolina to unpack that argument, and to hear her take on scale-up bottlenecks, particularly in the pre-seed stage for startups. Additionally, Carolina shared more about the soft skills she looks for in scientific founders, and the most common mistakes biofounders make when they pitch.
On Techno-Economic Analysis
What is TEA?
Techno-economic analysis (TEA) is a method for evaluating whether a process is technically and financially viable, mapping out things like feedstock use, yield, and cost drivers to estimate whether a technology can work at scale.
Why does TEA matter, even at pre-seed, and what's the most important thing founders should know to get started?
"A TEA is basically a map of how your process and your innovation are evolving. At the early stages, the expectation isn't for something overly complex. You don't need a huge, elaborate process model. Just something simple: mapping out how much feedstock you'll use, based on the stoichiometry you have in mind.
The premise is simple: simplicity drives adoption, and adoption drives impact. That's why it matters to us.
I often see founders get stuck because they've never been faced with a TEA before, but it's really just a simple mass balance connected to key unit economics. I don't need to know how your recycling stream works and what its ultimate economic impact will be. That's not what I'm looking for at this stage."
How does this apply to startups working in fields outside of bioprocessing, for example bioinformatics, AI, or biosensing?
"In the napkin, I also talk a lot about accelerating the design-build-test-learn cycle and that's ultimately how we innovate in bio. Services working in the bioinformatics space are enablers of that cycle. So one way to prove traction is to measure how much you can speed up that cycle, and how much they can support companies that are actually producing a product. Testimonials from people getting real, tangible value out of what you've built are always extremely valuable to us."
What technologies are you most interested in right now?
"I'm a bioprocess engineer by background, so I'm a little biased here, but I think one of the reasons we're not seeing enough success stories in bio is that scale-up is not easy. Technologies that can enable and make that journey easier: models, sensors, anything that helps companies jump from small to large scale. That's one of the most interesting spaces for me right now."
What should astartup do if they haven’tproven scale yet, but are starting to run low on funding?
"Pre-seed and seed are fuzzy stages, ideally we like to see proof of scale, but there's no strict clarity on that yet. Ultimately it's about how you sell your traction and tell your story. By Series A though, that's a much more critical stage. By then you should have reached product-market fit, with the traction to prove it. There are many ways to access capital that aren't VC, so if you're not hitting that bar, it's worth asking whether you're focusing on the right things."
From a Venture Capitalist’s Perspective: What Makes a Founder Fundable?
From a Venture Capitalist’s perspective, what soft skills matter most in a founder?
"I see this a lot with scientific founders. They're typically very strong technically, very focused on the tech. What's important is that you also understand the business side, that you've validated the problem, that you've actually spoken to customers.
Another one is obsession with the problem, not the solution that you genuinely want to make that change. Founders who came from professional sports, for example, often have that same sense of obsession. I've spoken to founders who sleep in the lab. That's maybe taking it a bit too far, but that sense of being in love with what you're doing, and being willing to go the extra mile, really helps."
What fundraising advice would you give early-stage biofounders?
"VCs are people too, don't overcomplicate it (the technology). Relate to the person first, then talk about the tech and the problem. Ultimately, we're in a business where we decide who we want to work with, so that personal fit is key. Don't forget that, the tech comes later."
What's the most common mistake you see when founders first reach out?
"Founders go too deep into tech and lose us in the process. I have a technical background myself, but there are many areas of science I don't fully understand, and it takes me longer to get there. If you go too deep into the science too fast, I get lost. Guide me along, keep it simple — and honestly, most of the time, the VC across the table is more ignorant of the problem and the science than you are. Keep that in mind, and bring them along with you."
Know a fellow bioinnovator who is looking to fund their innovation? Share this with them! If you want more interviews like this one delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe to our mailing list: https://igem-all.typeform.com/2026mailing
