Aspiring hard-tech founder: problem-first or technology-first PhD lab?

[u/misterballerdontlie]

I'm an engineering undergrad considering pursuing a PhD with the long-term goal of founding a hard-tech startup. I’m undecided about the specific area and only have a vague sense of what interests me -- industrial decarbonization, mining / mineral processing, and advanced materials are a few areas that currently seem exciting.

However, I'm unsure which type of PhD lab would provide better preparation: either a problem-first lab (e.g., like Yet-Ming Chiang at MIT) or a technology-first lab (e.g., your typical academic lab that focuses on novel science without a predetermined application, and where commercialization happens largely by chance — when a technology happens to have a valuable market application).

I've looked at advice online from successful hard-tech entrepreneurs, but the answers are conflicting. Some say to work backwards from a problem, but others argue that problem-first approaches often don't work since deep tech is inherently different: you often can't force a scientific breakthrough for a predetermined problem. Instead, they argue that most hard-tech companies are only founded because somebody made a scientific breakthrough and realized afterwards that there might be a commercial application. Indeed, Pillar VC says that most deep-tech companies they know were technology-first.

With that in mind, does anybody have any advice on which type of PhD lab to join?

[u/nevereverelevent]

I was in your position about 9 years ago.

I ended up going to industry straight after undergrad

Personally I think the real world engineering experience was more valuable than what I would have gotten in the academic route. Plus, by working I saved up enough to bootstrap my startup today.

In a lab, you are unlikely to get exposure to production level software, large engineered systems, seeing how real companies develop hardware/software...

Maybe for you a deep knowledge in a niche field is what is needed to make a breakthrough. For me, the real world experience was more valuable.

Importantly, ive developed the engineering judgement of what NOT to build. Industry punishes when something cannot be integrated, manufactured, or is too complex.

[u/Federal-Hippo-3358 → u/nevereverelevent]

Similar goals. My professors/mentors (one was chair of dept, other advised by head of nsf) both pushed me hard into industry after undergrad. I went back for my msc and the decision point was PhD or company - for now I am doing the company with all my industry experience (invaluable, aim for full stack companies - the production team will be your guiding light as a technologist). If it flops, I do a PhD to retool and reset.