Five Bottlenecks That Derail Water Tech Trials, and How to Avoid Them

This is the second of a three-part blog series on how the Trial Reservoirs Initiative is helping accelerate tech adoption in the water sector and beyond. Want to steal our model? Find out how in our first blog, here.

The global water industry is experiencing a boom in tech trials and demonstrations, driven by infrastructure needs and regulatory pressures. Meanwhile, investments in new treatment technologies and green solutions are expected to double in the next three years. Utilities are conducting trials through a variety of approaches, including dedicated test facilities and live operational environments. 

The time has never been better to lead the water environmental transformation to a more sustainable water future. Accelerating innovation — from technology development to financing mechanisms — is the linchpin to progress global water security and sustainable growth. But there’s a catch: less than half of utilities feel confident covering the costs of essential upgrades and new tech. Not only are utilities navigating climate change and urban growth, economic strain demands they do more with less.

Yet the biggest threat to innovation may be less obvious: the bottlenecks that continue to hinder water tech trials. Promising technologies are failing before they reach the market — not because they don’t work, but because the trial process itself is fundamentally flawed. These bottlenecks are not only persistent, they hit hardest when innovation is needed most. 

Our analysis of multiple technology trials across the water industry found five critical bottlenecks which are derailing potentially game-changing innovations. These barriers are systematic: we see them regularly across the industry. Understanding them — and more importantly, understanding how to overcome them — is the difference between breakthrough adoption and costly failure.

1.When Assumptions Kill Innovation: Inadequate Site Characterization

The Problem: Technology developers design solutions based on incomplete or inaccurate site conditions provided by potential customers.

A smart water metering startup learned this lesson the hard way. Their self-powered billing device was designed for water kiosks based on reported flow rates of 18-20 litres per minute. During the trial, actual flow rates measured only 2-4 litres per minute – insufficient to power the device. The trial ended before it truly began.

This scenario reflects a broader industry pattern. Water professionals cited an inability to accurately forecast the financial returns on the investment of making changes as the biggest barrier to innovation at their utility, followed by regulatory constraints and risk concerns. However, underlying many of these concerns is inadequate upfront assessment.

The Solution:

• Conduct independent site assessments before agreeing to trial parameters
• Implement multi-stage validation with preliminary testing phases
• Build buffer capacity into technology specifications to account for variability
• Establish clear protocols for site condition verification during trial setup

2. The Continuity Crisis: Shifting Organizational Priorities 

The Problem: Corporate restructuring, acquisitions, and personnel changes disrupt trial continuity and change stakeholder priorities mid-stream.

One telemetry technology successfully completed initial trials with a major water utility, meeting all original performance targets. However, during the enhancement period, the utility underwent two ownership changes. Each transition brought new priorities, different technical requirements, and ultimately, complete disengagement from the original agreement. This occurred despite the utility having already installed connection points for the upgraded technology.

Contributing factors include long project lifetimes and the high costs of previous water infrastructure serving to dissuade investment in new infrastructure (the sunk cost fallacy). The utility was also cautious, driven by public health concerns related to water access. Low financing for innovation is also a contributing factor, and organizational instability amplifies these challenges exponentially.

The Solution:

• Establish executive sponsorship at multiple organizational levels
• Create succession planning for key trial stakeholders
• Document institutional knowledge to survive personnel changes
• Design shorter trial cycles to minimize exposure to organizational disruption
• Include continuity clauses in trial agreements that survive ownership changes

3. The Moving Target Problem: Ambiguous Success Criteria 

The Problem: Vague or poorly defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) create opportunities for scope creep and selective interpretation.

A water quality monitoring trial initially specified hourly sampling with periodic intensive monitoring periods. When utility personnel changed, the new representative reinterpreted the agreement to require 15-minute sampling throughout the entire trial. This reinterpretation ultimately translated to a 4x increase in operating costs that pushed the technology above cost-effectiveness thresholds. The utility then cited this impossibility as grounds for trial termination.

This manipulation of ambiguous language reflects deeper issues with how water technology trials are structured from the outset.

The Solution:

• Define quantitative, measurable KPIs with explicit parameters
• Include operational cost constraints as binding success criteria
• Establish change control processes for any KPI modifications
• Create escalation procedures for interpretation disputes
• Implement early termination cost recovery clauses to discourage bad-faith withdrawals

We’ll dive into the benefits of well-crafted KPIs in our final blog of the series.

4. The Upstream Trap: Supply Chain Scalability Failures

The Problem: Technologies fail not because of inherent flaws, but because supporting supply chains cannot scale to meet trial or commercial demands.

An enzymatic water treatment technology showed excellent proof-of-concept results but struggled with enzyme supply reliability. Three different suppliers were engaged, but none could deliver the required combination of volume, activity level, and stability. The upstream supply chain failure doomed an otherwise promising technology.

This bottleneck is particularly insidious because it often emerges only during scaling phases, after significant investment has already been made. Digital technologies are effective at improving utilities’ operations, but may nonetheless face similar supply chain constraints.

The Solution:

• Conduct supply chain risk assessments before committing to trials
• Develop multiple qualified suppliers early in the process
• Test scalability assumptions at smaller scales before full deployment
• Include supply chain contingency plans in trial protocols
• Build strategic partnerships with suppliers invested in technology success

5. The Ostrich Strategy: Regulatory and Liability Avoidance 

The Problem: Utilities discover that successful trials will create regulatory obligations or liability exposure they prefer to avoid.

An emissions monitoring technology began revealing higher-than-expected pollutant levels at a utility facility. Rather than addressing the underlying issue, the utility sought to terminate the trial to avoid the legal obligation to act on the findings. The ambiguous KPIs provided a convenient excuse for withdrawal.

This represents a fundamental misalignment between technology development goals and utility operational realities. Limited resources, infrastructure limitations, technical expertise, data management, regulatory compliance and resistance to change often motivate avoidance rather than innovation.

The Solution:

• Address regulatory implications upfront during trial design
• Establish clear data ownership and disclosure protocols
• Create ‘safe harbor’ provisions for trial data versus operational data
• Align trial objectives with utility strategic goals, not just technical performance
• Include regulatory consultation in trial planning processes

Breaking Through Water Technology Trial Bottlenecks

The water industry faces challenges from scarcity and aging infrastructure to pollution, climate change, and the need for sustainable management. These challenges demand innovative solutions, but trial processes are systematically eliminating potentially transformative technologies before they can prove their worth. The water industry’s conservative approach to innovation isn’t inherently problematic — public health and environmental protection demand careful evaluation of new technologies. However, the current system is failing innovators and utilities alike, creating unnecessary barriers that prevent beneficial technologies from taking off. 

Crucially, successful technology trials also depend on trust between utilities and technology developers. Trust underpins open communication, shared risk taking, and mutual accountability – even the most promising technology trials can stall without it. All too often trials break down not because the technology falls short, but due to an erosion of trust. Misaligned expectations, lack of transparency, or fear of reputational and regulatory consequences are all examples of this. Trust between stakeholders is not an optional bonus, it is fundamental to a successful trial. 

Water technology trials bottlenecks are systemic issues requiring structural solutions. By addressing these five critical bottlenecks proactively, the industry can accelerate innovation adoption while maintaining rigorous public safety standards.

Ready to overcome these bottlenecks in your own technology trials? Explore our portfolio of successfully deployed water technologies that have navigated these challenges. The future of water security depends on getting scalability right – and that starts with getting trials right.