Hyper-Density Networks

What would a perfectly synchronised innovation chain look like?

I picture it as something like this:

1. A broad interdisciplinary group of scientists, engineers, and founders run a horizon scan on key technological domains (Computation, Biology, Manufacturing, Energy, etc), identifying 1) Frontier problems to overcome and 2) Domain macro-directions.
2. The above is refined into Requests for Startups-style reports, directly informing the focus for both founders & programs supporting innovation
3. Founders are selected under a Deep Technology accelerator around those frontier problems, with some level of redundancy (i.e. several approaches & focus points to any one problem). They are provided with every possible kind of core support: access to capital, technical expertise, discussion opportunities, access to labs or specialised spaces and so on.

Naturally, a couple questions arise:

1. Where do these founders come from? A fellowship-style interdisciplinary program can be established in parallel, combining 1) core founder & operator skills, 2) futures thinking, and 3) broader leadership training. I’ve been through one or two similar programs myself. That can be supplemented by a simple open application to cover already high-fit or otherwise overlooked talent.
2. The above can be extended even further, all the way to ecosystem seeding & acceleration. Collaborations can be set up across the country, or even internationally, to support already successful local initiatives along with the creation of news ones. That facilitates talent growth & venture creation from the ground up, in a decentralised manner.

If you push the logic to the absolute limit, all of this can be linked through a single hacker-house style space hosting interdisciplinary specialists, founders and researchers. The foresight arm can package all of the resulting insights to be presented directly to relevant policy specialists and government representatives, informing the policy and initiatives which support innovation and growth directly at state level.

This is, of course, a thought experiment.

In the real world, these roles are covered by multiple organisations. Sometimes dozens of them. Redundant & diverse systems are successful systems; the more organisations with different focus areas exist within a given space, the more resilient that space will be.

It does make one wonder, though, what could be achieved if you fuse the entire innovation flow. As an experiment.

Such models already exist. Not very many, but some. ARPA-style agencies and their Program Directors come to mind. By virtue of their focus on high-risk high-upside scientific research, they support frontier research that goes on to inform entire fields of future research, not to mention deep technology startups built on the back of those discoveries.

In a similar fashion, there already are Deep Tech accelerators operating in a manner similar to what I described. Selective applications, extensive resource support, programs & grants supporting specific verticals. Deeptech Labs, Cambridge is perhaps one of the best examples. They run a program twice a year, providing access to over 500 Deep Technology experts across various domains, not to mention access to Cambridge’s extensive ecosystem and networks.

Ecosystem creation & acceleration as a philosophy is, I think, a much newer concept. Technically every program is on some level an ecosystem program (The literal definition of a startup ecosystem includes all innovation within the given space, sectoral or geographical). So I suppose it would be more accurate to say long-term capacity creation. UNDP Accelerator Labs are doing some interesting work in that space: over 100 global accelerator ‘nodes‘ focusing on grassroots innovation. They also run extensive knowledge-sharing across the entire network. One of the few ‘bottom-up‘ programs operating at such a vast scale that I know of.

Each of these initiatives operates under its own mandate. They are set up through completely different structures (UN vs Gov Agencies vs Private), and have rather different incentives structures.

We can learn from each of them.

Compression, hyper-density. But also decentralisation. Together. How?

After spending quite a long time digging around various innovation models, I’ve arrived at the conclusion that one of the highest-impact approaches is a network-of-nodes style design, where the nodes themselves are hyper-dense clusters. It’s by no means the only approach. Rather, it’s a hybrid of two other very successful ones from opposite extremes:

1. Hyper-density by itself with a high selection bar, enabling substantial concentration of resource support and talent density (YC, EWOR).
2. Vast networks supporting dozens of hubs, reinforced with internal knowledge sharing and network power, enabling further scaling and eventually larger initiatives. Impact is achieved locally, resulting in a high total impact. Think UN agencies.

Two completely different models, outcomes & mandates, naturally.

I think there is a way to fuse them. If not within one organisation, then across an ecosystem.

A network of hyper-dense nodes. Depth, redundancy, global impact. All in one bucket. Supported by a dedicated foresight think tank to provide what one could call ‘navigation‘. An understanding of where the frontiers are, their implications, and what needs solving. Top-down and bottom-up at once.