The Quiet Shift

When Technology Becomes an Assessment Signal.

Technology has been front and centre in the funding ecosystem for a long time.

In Australia, it’s been actively fuelled by government funding aligned to strategic policy objectives — innovation agendas, productivity reform, and the long-running intention to build replacement industries as reliance on the resources sector declines. Other countries have different drivers, but the logic is the same: technology is seen as a lever for economic development.

So this isn’t a story about technology arriving.

It’s about what’s changed in how it’s being read.

What I’m seeing now — quietly and not obvious, but consistently — is that funders are not solely interested in technology companies. They’re starting to expect that all applicants, regardless of sector, are using technology deliberately to improve productivity, extend runway, and reduce the structural burden of high-cost teams.

That expectation isn’t always stated. But it’s there.

Where founders often misread this

Most women founders I speak to understand technology in one of two ways.

Either it’s something you build — a product, a platform, a system that is the business. Or it’s something you bolt on later — admin tools, software subscriptions, the “ops stuff” you deal with once funding comes through.

Both thought processes miss what funders are now paying attention to.

The common assumption is that unless you’re a tech company, your technology choices are basic and operational. Necessary, but neutral. Useful, but not material to assessment.

What I’m seeing instead is that assessors are increasingly asking — how you’re using technology to do more with less. Not in a hype-driven way. In a discipline-driven one.

You might be surprised to know, this is where applications quietly lose or gain confidence.

How this reads from an assessor or funder lens

From the other side of the table, technology has become a proxy.

Not for innovation. For judgement.

Assessors are looking at whether your delivery model is plausible under pressure. Whether your team size makes sense relative to your ambition. Whether your cost base reflects intentional design or historical habit.

Your technology choices now signal things like:

• how seriously you’ve thought about productivity

• whether your organisation can scale without proportionally scaling headcount

• how exposed you are to people risk, handover risk, and operational drag

Even when technology isn’t mentioned in the application, it’s inferred through budgets, timelines, staffing profiles, and delivery assumptions.

The real shift funders are making

The shift isn’t away from funding technology companies.

It’s towards expecting technology literacy across the board.

Funders are no longer satisfied with organisations that rely solely on manual effort, large teams, or heroic founder labour to deliver outcomes. There’s a growing expectation that applicants are making conscious choices about tools, systems, and workflows to increase efficiency and resilience.

That doesn’t mean you need cutting-edge AI or bespoke platforms.

It means funders are looking for evidence that you’ve thought about:

• how work gets done

• where effort is duplicated or wasted

• how decisions are tracked and executed

• how delivery holds if one or two people disappear

When that thinking is absent, risk increases, even if the mission is compelling.

Where this becomes an opportunity

For founders who are already operating lean, this shift can work in your favour.

I see many women founders who have quietly adopted tools and systems to manage complexity, streamline delivery, and protect their own energy — without ever naming that as capability.

The opportunity now is to ground that thinking for funding.

Not by listing tools. Not by talking about “digital transformation”. But by showing, through your model and your numbers, that you’ve designed an organisation that doesn’t require constant manual intervention to function.

When funders see that, confidence lifts.

Because what they’re really assessing is not your technology. It’s your ability to steward capital responsibly.

What good looks like 

Organisations with strong tech foundations don’t treat technology as an add-on or a badge.

They use it to support decision-making, reduce avoidable cost, and make delivery more predictable. Their systems reflect clear roles and ownership. Budgets demonstrate efficiency, not just growth. And delivery plans don’t rely on people doing unsustainable amounts of work to make the numbers stack up.

Fundamentally, these founders are honest about where technology is doing the heavy lifting — and where human judgement still matters.

That balance reads as fundable maturity.

Why this matters for women founders

As women founders, we are often judged more harshly on delivery risk, resourcing assumptions, and scalability. The expectation to “prove” capability runs deeper.

In that same context, technology has become one of the quiet ways credibility is assessed.

Not because you’re a technical founder. But because you’ve been intentional with what technology can do for you (and your business).

If your funding application assumes that every problem is solved by hiring another person, assessors notice. If your model shows that you’ve designed for efficiency and sustainability, they notice that too.

A readiness reflection

If a funder looked at your budgets, timelines, and delivery model, would they see evidence that you’ve used technology to extend your runway and reduce structural risk?

If that question gives you pause, maybe it's time to level up?

Reach out, let's have a conversation about the small steps you could be taking today, to make a difference tomorrow. 

Lisa Erhart is the founder of Funding4Growth and works across large-scale corporate innovation, funding assessment, and founder readiness. She brings an assessor’s lens to how technology, governance, and delivery decisions are interpreted in funding environments.