Houston expert: How to navigate the innovation journey — from PoC to MVP

guest column

This Houston expert describes the main phases central to any innovation journey. Photo courtesy of Slalom

As a technologist, one thing I learned early in my career about the technology landscape is its constant improvements and I understood that companies who kept up with those changes remain successful and competitive. However, only companies mastering a disciplined innovation framework are truly able to harness the power of emerging tech to help them solve their most complex business challenges.

Innovative solutions come in all shapes and sizes, but not all of them should come to life. Specifically, when considering digital solutions, there are a few widely accepted innovation approaches in the product engineering field. This quick guide describes the main phases central to any innovation journey.

Feasibility Study

Ideating can be fun but executing a feasibility study will ground you on what will work and what may still be science fiction. The thought here is to spend two to four weeks doing research and talking to experts to answer a few key questions that will help you determine the feasibility of your idea or concept. Through the study, you will learn how to look at it from both a technology and a business perspective. More importantly, to answer the question 'Is it even possible to accomplish your goal with this technology?'

A subject matter expert (SME) will quickly tell you yes or no and why. If you find the technology is indeed suitable, then you will move on to evaluate the business feasibility. Does it make financial sense? Does it work within established business policies? Will there be a healthy Return On Investment (ROI) within an acceptable timeline? If you find positive responses to those questions, then you should feel confident to move on to a Proof of Concept (PoC) or even jump to a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). On the other hand, if either the technology is not feasible or the solution doesn't make business sense, then you've just saved yourself a lot of time, budget, and possibly headaches.

Proof of Concept

This phase is about testing the theory and proving the hypothesis, technically speaking. You'll need to go through a Proof of Concept if the technology solution you have in mind hasn't been tested in either a lab setting or in the field. Thinking outside of the box and innovating is all about trying new approaches and solving problems in a novel way, so you'll have to spend the time and budget ensuring it will work as expected. However, you must be very careful to not get carried away.

A proper PoC should take four to six weeks, max. It should help you quickly determine whether the technology will live up to its promise or if you need to pivot to another approach. Building a team with the right skillset is vital to this process because they are the ones evaluating the proposed solution and comparing it to the expected outcomes. Any signs of discord should empower the team to stop the project, saving further investment, and should help you decide if another approach is even possible. If all criteria has been met, then move on to the MVP stage.

Minimum Viable Product

At this point, you have confirmed the solution you imagined works and you are ready to unlock its potential. But you must start small. You must prioritize all the features you want this product to have and decide what the core functionality should be. This is important because if you choose too many features to start with, you may initially spend too much money and time and may even miss a window of business opportunity you may have lined up. Hence the name of the MVP, it is a product that employs the minimum time, money, and features while still being a viable product.

In summary, if you have an innovative idea for a technology solution, I recommend you first determine whether it's feasible, both technology and business wise, through a short and focused study. If feasible, then you can put that concept to the test through a PoC and determine its desirability. If this product is indeed desirable, then moving into building an MVP will help you understand its viability – and that is how you can successfully innovate while keeping risks at bay.


------

Alfredo Arvide is the director for the products and innovation practice at Slalom Consulting in Houston, where he helps clients solve their most complex business challenges by leveraging emerging technologies and applying innovative technology solutions.

This week's roundup of Houston innovators includes Alfredo Arvide of Slalom Consulting, Allison Post of the Texas Heart Institute, and Jeff Price of Pronto Pay. Courtesy photos

3 Houston innovators to know this week

who's who

Editor's note: In this week's roundup of Houston innovators to know, I'm introducing you to three local innovators across industries — tech consulting, health care, and fintech — recently making headlines in Houston innovation.

Alfredo Arvide, senior principal within product engineering at Slalom Consulting

Should you launch an app? Or just a web page? This consultant weighs in with his advice. Photo courtesy of Slalom

Tech founders have a lot of decisions to make, and Alfredo Arvide of Slalom Consulting wrote a guest column for InnovationMap to help advise on a big one.

"One of the biggest decisions you'll have to make as an entrepreneur is whether you should host your product or service on the web, via an app, or through a webapp," he writes. "Product development has a million intricacies that will dictate – and sometimes demand – a specific route to market." Read more.

Allison Post, manager of innovation partnerships at the Texas Heart Institute

Allison Post joins the Houston Innovators Podcast to share what she's focused on in cardiac innovation. Photo courtesy of THI

In a perfect world, Houston's health care institutions work collaboratively on innovative health care solutions and the city soars as a major hub for life science innovation. That perfect world is Allison Post's goal. As Texas Heart Institute's manager of innovation partnerships, she is in charge of supporting THI innovators and connecting the institute with the rest of the city.

"I only see just phenomenal things for Houston, and what I really want is for the Texas Medical Center to become even more interconnected. We've got to be able to transfer ideas and thoughts and intentions seamlessly between these institutions and right now there are a lot of barriers," Post says. "And I really think Texas Heart is hopefully going to serve as an example of how to take down those barriers." Read more and stream the episode.

Jeff Price, founder and CEO of Pronto Pay

This Houston startup has an app for helping employees get a portion of their paychecks before payday. Photo via Pexels

So much of the country lives paycheck to paycheck, and Jeff Price saw a business opportunity to help out employees who need an advance on their wages. He founded Pronto Pay in the first quarter of 2021. The software aims to connect hourly works with transparent access to wages earned before pay day without disrupting the employers' books.

"When you think about it, payroll hasn't changed in nearly two centuries. As far as we can remember, you get paid weekly or bi-weekly. And that's precisely the point we're trying to solve," Price says. Read more.

Should you launch an app? Or just a web page? This consultant weighs in with his advice. Photo courtesy of Slalom

Web page or app? Houston expert shares his tips for launching your online platform

guest column

One of the biggest decisions you'll have to make as an entrepreneur is whether you should host your product or service on the web, via an app, or through a webapp. In this quick guide, I'll go over a few tips to help you narrow down the options and make an informed decision.

First, allow me to explain each of these terms. In this context, I am assuming your big idea is either a product or service which your customer base will consume in a digital format. The question is, do you deliver your product or service via a regular webpage (web), does it require robust native application functionality (app), or can it be a hybrid model where the app runs on browser (webapp).

Certainly, if you can sell your product or services through a simple online store, then the debate is over: you should just web. If you are just selling a new gadget, for example, you don't need an app nor a webapp. E-Commerce has come such a long way that a simple webpage will suffice.

However, if that is not your situation, then here's three main considerations to help you decide between building an app or a webapp.

Native hardware required

If your product or service will use a hardware component from your audience's mobile device or tablet, such as the GPS, the Camera, the Microphone, or the Gyroscope, then you should heavily lean towards building a native app.

There are web frameworks that will allow you to gain access to a devices' camera or GPS via a webapp, but none are as stable, reliable, or robust as using a native app framework.

The question then becomes, what operating system do you develop your native app in: Apple's iOS, Google's Android, Microsoft's Windows, other or all of them?

Keep in mind there are platforms – such as Xamarin – that enable you to develop in multiple native app ecosystems simultaneously, however, deciding the platform(s) will affect your timeline, budget and audience reach. Also know that if your product or service can or should be accessible offline, then that reinforces your native app decision and eliminates a webapp given they require connectivity to run on a browser.

Universal adoption expected

In contrast, if you are looking to sign-up a broad audience then you should lean towards building a webapp.

All devices, whether mobile, tablets or laptops, have sophisticated and modern web browsers that can easily run webapps. Therefore, if you don't want to worry about deciding between different platforms, then by building a universal webapp that is compatible with all popular browsers all your users will have immediate access.

This route also bypasses all the requirements you must meet and the policies you must comply with to publish your native app to communities such as Apple's App Store or Google Play.

Even better you can update and maintain your webapp at your own pace, not having to rely on Apple's or Google's approval and publish/update schedules.

Investment tolerance 

Now, if you gathered major seed funding or hit it big in a series A round giving you a higher upfront investment tolerance, then I'd advise you to go the native app route.

The aforementioned Apple and Google native app marketplaces, albeit strict, offer amazing features that you would not be able to leverage going the webapp route. Your customer experience will almost certainly be higher going native app, which will increase your ROI, promote repeat subscribers and overall success.

But this route will be more expensive than webapp, especially if you do decide to offer it on multiple major platforms. Hence, if you have the budget, go for it and launch natively. If your investment tolerance is more reserved, then start with a webapp, and simply iterate until you are forced to go native.

Table Description automatically generated

This quick guide is by no means an exhaustive list of considerations. Product development has a million intricacies that will dictate – and sometimes demand – a specific route to market. Yet, if you ask yourself a few of the questions I laid out, you will be able to make an informed decision guiding your commercialization strategy as you kick off your startup journey.

------

Alfredo Arvide is a senior principal within product engineering at Slalom Consulting in Houston, where he helps clients tackle their most complex business challenges by applying innovative technology solutions.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Texas A&M, UH rise in global rankings of universities attracting the most attention

visibility report

Houston and Texas universities had a strong showing on the 2026-27 Global University Visibility (GUV) Rankings compiled by D.C.-based higher ed market research firm American Caldwell.

Texas A&M ranked No. 6 on the list—the top rank of any Texas university. Meanwhile, the University of Houston ranked No. 52, a 15-spot jump from its previous ranking.

The GUV rankings rate colleges that garner the most global attention via news coverage, social media influence, website traffic, YouTube views, and general public interest. GUV evaluated over 1,200 universities across 193 United Nations-recognized countries.

Texas A&M, with its No. 6 global ranking, also claimed the No. 5 spot among U.S. institutions. The university climbed 21 spots from its previous rank.

“News mentions were a driver of Texas A&M’s movement in this year’s rankings, and earned media remains one of the strongest signals of relevance,” Tim Doty, associate vice president for earned media at Texas A&M, said in a news release. “Much of that visibility begins with our faculty and research experts, whose work helps explain, solve and give context to issues people care about. When Texas A&M experts appear in news stories about research, discovery, national security, agriculture, health, engineering, service and the future of Texas, audiences see the university not only as large or well known, but as useful, relevant and necessary to the conversations shaping our state and country.”

In the “Public Interest” category, UH also claimed a top 10 global ranking at No.6. UH touts its overall GUV rankings success to Guggenheim Fellowships, MacArthur “Genius” grants, National Academy membership, studies like researchers breaking the superconductivity temperature record, and success on the football field and basketball courts.

“Across the board, there is no question that the University of Houston is a brand on the rise,” Shawn Lindsey, interim vice president for marketing and communications, said in a news release. “People are seeing our story, hearing about the amazing things happening at UH and actively seeking us out to learn more. We are seeing it in record-high student applications, we are seeing increases in trademark licensing revenue, our faculty are earning global accolades. It’s an exciting time to be a Houston Cougar.”

Other Texas institutions to make the top 250 on the list include:

  • No. 22 The University of Texas at Austin
  • No. 104 University of Texas at Dallas
  • No. 159 Texas Tech University
  • No. 178 Rice University
  • No. 191 University of North Texas
  • No. 248 Texas State University

For the fourth year in a row, Harvard University secured the top spot on the list, followed by MIT, Stanford University and Purdue University. The University of Oxford was the top non-U.S. institution at No. 5.

See the full list here.

Astrodome group seeks new ideas for future of historic Houston landmark

8th Wonder News

The Astrodome may have once been touted as the Eighth Wonder of the World, but its current condition remains one of Houston's most famous follies. In an effort to find a better use for the iconic building, The Astrodome Conservancy has released a Request for Information (RFI), inviting proposals from interested parties on how the historic landmark might be used in the future. Respondents have until September 8 to submit their responses at the official conservancy site.

“This RFI is an opportunity for the market to help shape a shared vision for the Astrodome,” said Beth Wiedower Jackson, executive director of the Astrodome Conservancy, in a release. “We are looking to gather creative, feasible, and financially viable ideas that reflect both the significance of the Astrodome and its potential as a catalyst for future development.”

When the Astrodome opened in 1965, it was a marvel of engineering and the world's first air-conditioned, multi-purpose domed sports stadium. It remained an iconic part of Houston until changing trends in sports sent the Astros and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo to newer stadiums with modern amenities. After the 2003 rodeo, the dome was closed, except for a brief use as an evacuation shelter for Hurricane Katrina.

A decades-long fight over what to do with the Astrodome followed that closure. The City of Houston condemned the building for various code violations in 2009. Fully renovating it would cost over $700 million — a tall order for taxpayers. Demolishing it would be far cheaper (around $55 million), but its status on the National Register of Historic Places makes that virtually impossible. Meanwhile, Harris County pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to maintain the building.

Proposals for the space have run the gamut. In 2024, the Astrodome Conservancy proposed Vision: Astrodome, which would transform the building into an indoor mall and event space. That still appears to be the foundation of the plan according to the RFI.

The RFI is seeking private investment to partner with the Harris County property. Proposals are merely for planning purposes and will not automatically lead to contracts for development. Section 2.3 states that participants in the new mixed-use space will "require back-of-house infrastructure improvements to support reliable operations at scale," likely meaning that the plan is to fund some of the much-needed renovations via tenants. However, the RFI points out that participants in the revitalized Astrodome will also be eligible for historic space preservation tax credits.

While Vision: Astrodome seems committed to using the stadium as a public space for the entertainment of Houstonians, the RFI is clear other options are on the table.

The Astrodome possibly being used to house a data center is specifically mentioned, though the RFI mandates such a proposal would need to be very upfront about the infrastructure demands and continuing operating costs of such a project. Public backlash against data centers led to Governor Greg Abbott ordering a pause on grid connections to them pending further review.

"The Astrodome presents a unique opportunity for adaptive reuse and redevelopment that honors its legacy while positioning it for long-term community and economic impact," said the conservancy in the release announcing the RFI.

Houston lands $14M in latest CPRIT grants to advance cancer, lab-on-chip research

cancer funding

Thanks to a $4 million grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, the University of Houston has recruited a top-tier researcher developing AI-powered lab-on-a-chip technology for early cancer detection.

Tianhong Cui, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities and an adjunct professor of physiology and biomedical engineering at the Mayo Clinic, specializes in microelectromechanical systems and advanced manufacturing at microscale and nanoscale levels. In addition to lab-on-a-chip systems, Cui focuses on biosensors and water sensors.

Lab-on-a-chip devices deliver big results in a tiny package

The CPRIT grant supports Cui’s development of a microscale lab-on-a-chip system for early cancer detection and post-therapy monitoring.

“Lab-on-a-chip technology crams an entire lab’s worth of functions into a tiny device roughly the size of a USB stick,” according to Built In.

Common uses for the technology include medical diagnostics, point-of-care testing, and environmental monitoring.

Lab-on-a-chip work being carried out at UH and elsewhere in Houston promises to revolutionize cancer detection and treatment. For instance, Houston biotech company iBiochips, a spinout from the Houston Methodist Research Institute, makes lab-on-a-chip devices that bolster cancer detection and therapy.

Four local organizations gain $10 million in CPRIT grants

Four other Houston-area organizations received an additional $10 million in grants in CPRIT’s latest round of funding:

  • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center received two $2 million grants to recruit researchers Zheqi Li of Harvard University’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Nikolaos Koundouros of Weill Cornell Medicine.
  • Rice University received one $2 million grant to recruit researcher Maria Akoppyan, formerly of the University of Southern California.
  • UT Medical Branch at Galveston received one $2 million grant to recruit researcher Cristina Santarossa of Johns Hopkins University.
  • Houston-based biopharma company Pulmotect received one $2 million grant to support better outcomes for cancer patients by activating immunity in the lungs as a first line of defense against germs.

The funding was part of $35 million in new CPRIT grants for institutions and companies across Texas approved at the organization's most recent meeting. To date, CPRIT has awarded more than $4.2 billion in grants.

“These awards support research across the cancer continuum from prevention to new classes of therapeutics,” said Dr. Scott Hiebert, chief scientific officer of CPRIT, said in a news release. “The work of these investigators will impact the lives of Texans across the state.”

View All Listings