Kristof De Mey, Co-Founder of OnTracx: “It’s often forgotten that implementing something new always comes with challenges, resistance and setbacks.”

Kristof De Mey, Co-Founder of OnTracx, is a busy man. He lectures in Sports Technology and Innovation at Ghent University in Belgium, where he also works as a sports technology, innovation and business developer – manages a consortium of experts called Victoris. It was through his work at the university that he co-founded OnTracx – but much more of that in a second as we haven’t yet listed all the work Kristof does!

Together with the startup acceleration program and investment fund imec.istart, he started an initiative called SportUp, which functions as the Flemish program supporting local and international startups within sport. With a focus on societal impact, he co-founded the non-profit organisation Sportamundi, which helps generate, develop and implement evidence-based tools in schools and other physical education settings. 

Lastly, he launched the Sports Tech Research Network. This aims to connect sports, tech and business scientists with industry, and in doing so help startups create and market more effective sports and health-related products and services. Did we mention that Kristof is a busy guy?

As such, we have to profusely thank him for his time. As you will see, Kristof doesn’t dash off a glib reply: he’s truly passionate about what he does, and he wants more companies to succeed. Read his advice carefully, and that could be you.

Related reading: Let the games begin: Paris Olympics put AI to the test

Tell us your elevator pitch

I’m a Sports Technology, Innovation and Business Developer at Ghent University, Belgium. With a background as a basketball player, physical and manual therapist and a PhD in the domain of exercise training for the prevention and treatment of shoulder injuries in overhead athletes, my focus for the past decade has been on science-based sport and health tech innovation, university-industry collaborations and early-stage startup support.

I’ve had the chance to be involved in a high variety of projects related to technology, with sports varying from running to cycling to football. In terms of tech, this has included wearables, artificial intelligence and exergaming. Also, through the setup of a regional startup acceleration project, I supported over 30 startups within this domain during the past years! That also brought me to co-founding an academic spin-off together with two others who finished their PhDs at Ghent University.

With that company (OnTracx), we recently brought to market a product that is focused on the management of mechanical load on the lower legs of runners. The product makes it possible to get an accurate view of how the running surface, running style, shoe choice, etc all influence the loading characteristics. That’s relevant because about 75% of all running injuries are located in the lower legs due to overloading. More importantly, the product allows us to progressively add load during training, as only looking at mileage or running time has significant limitations when the goal is to prevent those types of injuries (or gradually return from an injury).

What is it about sports tech that excites you? What made you get into this sector?

I started in this field just after finishing my PhD. At the time, 2013, sports tech wasn’t a big thing. But that changed very quickly year after year. What excites me the most is the interplay between science, technology, entrepreneurship and practical needs or implementation strategies. In short: innovation through collaboration.

Also, I have a special interest in the relationships between the sports, health and medical technology domains, as it’s my assumption that these fields will get closer together moving forward.

Another relevant aspect is that when working in sports, there’s often a lot of passion involved. On the one hand, this results in a very dynamic, vibrant sector. On the other hand, it may be one of the reasons why it’s also often called ‘a jungle’. The sports field is really driven largely by marketing and storytelling. In terms of market strategies, this means that everybody can bring a product to the market, as long as it’s in line with national and international legislation. From a business perspective, this can be seen as a big advantage, for sure as compared to, say, the medical field. However, from an end-user perspective, it makes it really difficult to answer questions like ‘What’s the best solution for me out there?’ or ‘Which one should I trust the most?’

The latter was one of the reasons for starting a Special Interest Group within the context of the Sports Tech Research Network, which I started during the pandemic. In this context, the team of Professor Sam Robertson from Victoria University in Australia and a group of experts started working together on a framework, providing (at least the start of) an answer to the question ‘How to evaluate the quality of a piece of technology relevant for sports?’ The result can be found here in the form of a white paper but is also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal here.

Recommended: Marilou McFarlane, CEO of Women in Sports Tech: “It’s rewarding beyond measure to see how technology has impacted the growth of women’s sports”

What sports does your tech apply to? And have you been surprised by its use?

The OnTracx product is focused on running. It’s the result of work being done over the years at the Department of Movement and Sports Sciences and the Sport Science Laboratory Jacques Rogge in Ghent. A team of running biomechanics experts collaborated with engineers and a variety of partners to come up with new algorithms and related insights regarding the measurement and actual use of mechanical loading metrics. These are considered useful in both the prevention and rehabilitation of overuse injuries at the lower leg, both in novice and more experienced runners.

With OnTracx, we bring these academic findings into an actual product which can be used in the field. We launched an MVP in April this year and were positively surprised by the initial traction, despite the product still being rather basic. A wearable is attached to the lower leg, which connects with a smartphone (Apple or Android) which visualises the results in real-time or post-run. As a result, the product can be used by both the individual runner and the professional, helping him or her to stay or become pain-free.

How do you stay up to date on the latest technology developments in sports?

It’s not easy these days to stay up to date, given the speed of developments. I often tell students and field professionals that in case they meet people who give them the impression that they know it all, they should immediately question everything else that person is saying to them.

That said, there are various ways that I find useful in staying informed. First, social media has been and is still a great way to see what people in the ecosystem are doing, which articles they read, events they go to, etc. Secondly, there are many newsletters on sports, health, or fitness technology which you can follow. Some of my favourites are the ones by Fitt Insider, SportsTechX and The Upside. Thirdly, there’s a plethora of online and in-person events which people can attend. They all have their particular focus areas and quality varies, but there are more than enough options in case one wishes to learn from other disciplines, fields, sports, etc.

Besides all these options, people in this sector are generally very open to chat. So, for those who want to get to know or even enter this job market, my advice would be to reach out to people, prepare yourself and offer to do something valuable. There’s a very high chance that they’ll provide you with relevant advice and introductions in return.

Related reading: Rethinking data collaboration

What do you believe is the biggest opportunity in sports tech right now?

I’ll answer this one looking at it from different angles.

When looking at it from a startup perspective, the biggest opportunity is in truly understanding your customer. Many factors determine whether a project will be successful or not, but one thing is very clear. You need to offer a product that people want. Maybe it’s solving their problem, maybe not or only partly. But if they don’t want it, there is no future for it. I’m often surprised that this (not truly empathising with users or potential clients) is still one of the major issues.

When looking at it from an academic perspective, there is a tremendous opportunity for researchers who are well-embedded within their respective fields. If you’re working on something new as an academic, and you’re not aware of what the industry is doing, or what people in teams, federations or alike are using or wanting to use, there is little chance that you’ll be successful. For sure when you define success as offering added value to people and the broader society. The key point here is that people in academic environments should have a good balance between periods during which they go deep into the details and periods during which they broaden their network and scope.

Finally, when looking at it from a sports practitioner perspective, there’s an immense opportunity to set up fruitful collaborations with complementary organisations. Science has already shown the high relevance of human factors and motivational psychology when developing and applying sports technologies in particular contexts (elite or amateur, individual or team, young or adult sport). Working together with researchers, developers, policymakers, etc will result in much more useful and impactful tools. And therefore, the whole ecosystem should think of the best methods to engage and incentivise the different stakeholders throughout the whole innovation process.

When it comes to technology, what are the most common mistakes you see sports organisations make?

There are a few, I think.

First, there’s often the tendency to have very high expectations when starting to use certain technologies. My advice in those cases would be to really think through what you want to accomplish, thereby setting ambitious, but rather realistic objectives. It may also help in providing clear enough guidelines or codes of conduct in terms of what to use when, how, etc.

Along those lines, it’s often forgotten that implementing something new always comes with challenges, resistance and setbacks. This is the case in working with startups for sure. The most important thing here, mainly in professional settings, is to have a long-term vision in which technology implementations can be framed. In the end, it’s about the people building, managing and (hopefully) experiencing the benefits of using the product. So, both the necessary talent and processes need to be in place when the goal is to create a competitive advantage with technology.

Furthermore, technology shouldn’t be the main answer to most questions or shouldn’t be implemented too soon. This is mainly true in semi-professional or smaller organisations. People working there are often a bit forced to ‘work on innovation’, which too often is interpreted as ‘we need to start working with tech’. In many of those environments, however, both the overall climate for change and the necessary resources to do so are not there or prioritised by the management. In those cases, it’s most likely a better shot to work on the basics first.