Innovation Ecosystem Mapping

Should you try Google’s famous “20% time” experiment to encourage innovation? We tried this at Duolingo years ago. It didn’t work. It wasn’t enough time for people to start meaningful projects, and very few people took advantage of it because the framework was pretty vague. I knew there had to be other ways to drive innovation at the company. So, here are 3 other initiatives we’ve tried, what we’ve learned from each, and what we're going to try next. 💡 Innovation Awards: Annual recognition for those who move the needle with boundary-pushing projects. The upside: These awards make our commitment to innovation clear, and offer a well-deserved incentive to those who have done remarkable work. The downside: It’s given to individuals, but we want to incentivize team work. What’s more, it’s not necessarily a framework for coming up with the next big thing. 💻 Hackathon: This is a good framework, and lots of companies do it. Everyone (not just engineers) can take two days to collaborate on and present anything that excites them, as long as it advances our mission or addresses a key business need. The upside: Some of our biggest features grew out of hackathon projects, from the Duolingo English Test (born at our first hackathon in 2013) to our avatar builder. The downside: Other than the time/resource constraint, projects rarely align with our current priorities. The ones that take off hit the elusive combo of right time + a problem that no other team could tackle. 💥 Special Projects: Knowing that ideal equation, we started a new program for fostering innovation, playfully dubbed DARPA (Duolingo Advanced Research Project Agency). The idea: anyone can pitch an idea at any time. If they get consensus on it and if it’s not in the purview of another team, a cross-functional group is formed to bring the project to fruition. The most creative work tends to happen when a problem is not in the clear purview of a particular team; this program creates a path for bringing these kinds of interdisciplinary ideas to life. Our Duo and Lily mascot suits (featured often on our social accounts) came from this, as did our Duo plushie and the merch store. (And if this photo doesn't show why we needed to innovate for new suits, I don't know what will!) The biggest challenge: figuring out how to transition ownership of a successful project after the strike team’s work is done. 👀 What’s next? We’re working on a program that proactively identifies big picture, unassigned problems that we haven’t figured out yet and then incentivizes people to create proposals for solving them. How that will work is still to be determined, but we know there is a lot of fertile ground for it to take root. How does your company create an environment of creativity that encourages true innovation? I'm interested to hear what's worked for you, so please feel free to share in the comments! #duolingo #innovation #hackathon #creativity #bigideas

The technologies of the future are created and commercialized in innovation hubs that combine scientific excellence with entrepreneurial ambition. There are thousands of such hubs around the world, and our Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025 seeks to shine a light on those doing well through the GII Ranking of World’s Top 100 Innovation Clusters. For the first time, we have included VC data alongside international patent filings and scientific publications. Adding the VC lens has shifted the top of the table slightly, helping to push China’s Greater Bay Area into number one spot, nudging the Tokyo-Yokohama cluster into second, and lifting Silicon Valley from sixth to third spot this year. Beijing was ranked fourth. Each of those clusters led in a different way. Tokyo-Yokohama was the single biggest source of international patent filings, while the Silicon Valley cluster (around San Jose and San Francisco) attracted more venture capital than anywhere else. Beijing led the world in terms of the number of scientific publications. The Greater Bay Area, which encompasses Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Guangzhou, did not lead in any of the three categories, but its strong showings across the board gave it a balanced profile and put it in first place overall. This cluster ranking, as well as our flagship Global Innovation Index (out on 16 September), is designed to help policymakers, business leaders and researchers better understand the local and global innovation landscape, and to design policies that make innovation ecosystems more vibrant. 33 economies are covered by our list of the top 100 clusters, including Germany (which has seven clusters), India and the United Kingdom (four each) and Canada and the Republic of Korea (which has three, like Japan). Propelled by the new methodology and strong performance in VC deals, Indian clusters have made remarkable advancements, with Bengaluru jumping from 56th to 21st position, Delhi to 26th (compared to 63rd) and Mumbai to 46th (compared to 88th). In addition to the dynamic hubs in China and India, six vibrant innovation hubs from middle-income countries also feature in the top 100: Brazil (São Paulo), Egypt (Cairo – the top-100 cluster in Africa), Iran (Tehran), Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur), Türkiye (Istanbul) and Mexico (Mexico City) – which enters the top 100 this year for the first time and makes up the second innovation cluster within Latin America. Outside the top 100, some of the leading middle-income economy innovation clusters are Ankara (Türkiye), Bangkok (Thailand), Buenos Aires (Argentina), Islamabad and Lahore (Pakistan), and Rio De Janeiro and Porto Alegre (Brazil). These clusters show how the combination of strategic investments coupled with supportive policy frameworks can build thriving ecosystems. More: https://lnkd.in/e882jzRp #WIPO #GlobalInnovationIndex #GII2025

Sustainability Services Ecosystem Map 🌎 This diagram, developed by Giki, offers a structured view of the growing ecosystem of organizations and platforms supporting sustainability. Its relevance today is undeniable, particularly as regulatory pressure, investor scrutiny, and stakeholder expectations accelerate. The sustainability landscape is growing increasingly complex. Companies are no longer relying on a single advisor or platform but are engaging with a wide range of actors, from disclosure bodies to emissions software providers, capacity-building networks, and global initiatives. This map organizes the ecosystem into five service categories: Measurement and Disclosure, Capacity Building and Engagement, Strategy and Net Zero Transition, and External Stakeholder Relationships. Each plays a distinct role in supporting the design, implementation, and tracking of sustainability strategies. In the measurement space, frameworks, standards, rating systems, and software tools coexist to support robust disclosure practices. Understanding their scope and interconnections is critical for building consistent and reliable reporting processes. In the consulting and advisory realm, various firms provide strategy development and transition planning, often acting as integrators across tools, frameworks, and data systems. Their role is central in operationalizing sustainability commitments. The capacity-building and engagement segment includes platforms focused on employee activation, public education, and behavioral change. These initiatives help embed sustainability into organizational culture and broader stakeholder engagement. Global initiatives and offset providers help align ambition across sectors while offering access to shared methodologies, benchmarks, and mechanisms for emissions reduction or removal. Their influence extends across policy, market signaling, and credibility. As sustainability becomes a core business function, it is essential to map out the ecosystem of support available. Knowing the distinct role of each actor allows organizations to build the right partnerships and infrastructure to deliver credible, impactful outcomes. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg

During the ascent of #fintech as a disruption driver in #finance, digital banks have been the first and most impactful use case. Let’s take a look at their playbook. The term itself – alternatives include challenger banks or neobanks – characterizes players (usually new entrants) challenging the traditional banking model with a #technology-first approach that involves flexible, branchless, digital-native (mobile) banking, often focusing on or starting from niche segments and customers. An increasingly digital arena, a shift in consumer behaviour and a gap in product and customer focus by incumbents have enabled these new players to challenge the status quo. Their success and proliferation around the globe is a clear sign of agile, digital-first, product-niche strategies prevailing over traditional, monolithic, vertical banking #business models. Whereas different patterns can be identified in their evolutionary path, the successful models can be aggregated to two broad categories: — Greenfield players starting completely from scratch by means of identifying a niche market or segment, often neglected by incumbents, and focusing on seamless customer experience, attractive design, competitive pricing and a digital or mobile only set-up. In terms of strategy two elements clearly stand-out: 1) hyper-growth and scale as the core - sometimes only - metrics (which explains why so many have been unprofitable) 2) an ecosystem play, driven by horizontal partnerships (vs the vertical traditional model). N26, Revolut and Nubank are typical examples of this model. — Large, closed-loop ecosystem players with a non-finance business geared on technology and an anchor in #ecommerce launching (digital) #banking spin-offs as a means of converting (and monetizing) their existing client-base. Most (or almost all) of the examples here come from Asia (i.e. Webank, Kakaobank), mainly due to the set-up of the #economy (lacking a robust, finance architecture and, in effect, benefiting private, BigTech players covering the gap). Webank, for example, is owned by Tencent, China’s largest social-media BigTech company (owner of WeChat, China’s equivalent of Facebook). It has managed to reach a value of $33 billion and a base of more than 320 million active users by focusing on building a modern IT stack (as a competitive edge to traditional banks) and leveraging on the data generated by the Tencent ecosystem (i.e. retail lending credit scoring built on Tencent data, resulted in a non-performing loan ratio of just 1.2%, about half (or less) of the industry average for such non-secured loans). Irrespective of their origins, both models have been (fast) converging to what has become the new holy grail of modern finance: platform #economics and ecosystem plays. These are the concepts that will be defining the boundaries in an increasingly network and technology driven field. Opinions: my own, Graphic source: Momentum Works, Decoding digital banks

I've watched 3 "revolutionary" healthcare technologies fail spectacularly. Each time, the technology was perfect. The implementation was disastrous. Google Health (shut down twice). Microsoft HealthVault (lasted 12 years, then folded). IBM Watson for Oncology (massively overpromised). Billions invested. Solid technology. Total failure. Not because the vision was wrong, but because healthcare adoption follows different rules than consumer tech. Here's what I learned building healthcare tech for 15 years: 1/ Healthcare moves at the speed of trust, not innovation ↳ Lives are at stake, so skepticism is protective ↳ Regulatory approval takes years usually for good reason ↳ Doctors need extensive validation before adoption ↳ Patients want proven solutions, not beta testing 2/ Integration trumps innovation every time ↳ The best tool that no one uses is worthless ↳ Workflow integration matters more than features ↳ EMR compatibility determines adoption rates ↳ Training time is always underestimated 3/ The "cool factor" doesn't predict success ↳ Flashy demos rarely translate to daily use ↳ Simple solutions often outperform complex ones ↳ User interface design beats artificial intelligence ↳ Reliability matters more than cutting-edge features 4/ Reimbursement determines everything ↳ No CPT code = no sustainable business model ↳ Insurance coverage drives provider adoption ↳ Value-based care is changing this slowly ↳ Free trials don't create lasting change 5/ Clinical champions make or break technology ↳ One enthusiastic doctor can drive adoption ↳ Early adopters must see immediate benefits ↳ Word-of-mouth beats marketing every time ↳ Resistance from key stakeholders kills innovations The pattern I've seen: companies build technology for the healthcare system they wish existed, not the one that actually exists. They optimize for TechCrunch headlines instead of clinic workflows. They design for Silicon Valley investors instead of 65-year-old physicians. A successful healthcare technology I've implemented? A simple visit summarization app that saved me time and let me focus on the patient. No fancy interface, very lightweight, integrated into my clinical workflow, effortless to use. Just solved an problem that users had. Healthcare doesn't need more revolutionary technology. It needs evolutionary technology that works within existing systems. ⁉️ What's the simplest technology that's made the biggest difference in your healthcare experience? Sometimes basic beats brilliant. ♻️ Repost if you believe implementation beats innovation in healthcare 👉 Follow me (Reza Hosseini Ghomi, MD, MSE) for realistic perspectives on healthcare technology

The UK has no shortage of startup support programmes. But how well do they work? In our new paper, Full Speed Ahead: Accelerating Britain’s network of startup support programmes, we ask whether the startup support ecosystem is delivering on its promise to founders, funders and the wider economy. We spoke to programme operators, founders, and policy experts to understand the challenges and opportunities, and we propose four areas of reform to help startup support programmes deliver lasting, measurable outcomes. As our Patron, Steve Rigby, writes in the foreword: “We are world-class at launching startups – but not yet at helping them scale. If we want the UK to remain globally competitive, we need to raise the bar on the programmes we fund, back, and promote.” Our report unpacks why issues persist. The common problems we found include: – Misaligned expectations: Many accelerators focus heavily on mentoring and workshops, whereas founders need investor and customer connections. – Duration mismatches: Most programmes last under six months, but founders in deep tech, health and regulated sectors need much longer runway to become investment-ready. – Short-term funding cycles: Stop-start grants disrupt mentorship, break community continuity and undermine the long-term trust essential for founder development. – Flawed impact measurement: Startup survival and funding secured are important, but this doesn’t capture long-term founder development or second-time success. A "failed" startup can produce a much stronger entrepreneur. Our recommendations include: – Establish standards and shared definitions for different programme types to bring clarity, comparability, and baseline quality to the sector. – Reform impact measurement to track long-term founder development, not just short-term startup outcomes or programme activities. – Move to longer-term, outcome-linked support, replacing stop-start grants with adaptable contracts that support iteration, trust, and planning. – Pilot demand-led funding vouchers to let public funding follow founder needs and reward high-performing programmes. We believe these reforms matter because founders need clarity, funders need accountability, and programmes need time and tools to improve. Done right, these changes could help ensure that public investment flows to the programmes that deliver the most value for founders and the UK economy.

Germany invented the automobile. 🚗 But China just took the keys. 🔑 The 2025 Global Innovation Index is out: China cracks the top 10. Germany is out. 📉 The immediate response: "Of course China ranks high—it has 1.4 billion people and an $18.9 trillion economy compared to Germany's $4.7 trillion”. But here's what makes this milestone remarkable: WIPO's 78 indicators control for population and GDP. R&D spending is measured as a percentage of GDP, not absolute dollars. Researchers are counted per million people, not in total. Under these normalized metrics, China—a middle-income country—is outperforming nations with GDP per capita 3-4 times higher. Countries at China's income level typically rank in the 50s or 60s. China landed at #10. 🐲The "Fat Tech Dragon" Myth is Over The old narrative was simple: China innovates through brute force and massive spending. The new data reveals a leaner machine. China’s innovation output (patents, tech exports) is now surpassing its input scores (R&D spending). They are generating more bang for the innovation buck. How? Three structural shifts: 1️⃣Patent Power: World leader in annual patent filings. 2️⃣Cluster Dominance: Hosts more top global innovation clusters than any other country, with Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou now ranked #1 worldwide. 3️⃣Strategic Capital: Venture funding is strategically funneled into AI, semiconductors, and clean tech, not spread thin. Switzerland still ranks #1. Sweden #2. The U.S. #3. But China at #10 represents something unprecedented: proof that a middle-income economy can compete with wealthy Western nations on innovation efficiency, not just scale. Germany's displacement isn't about German decline—it filed more patents than ever. It's about China fundamentally improving how it converts resources into innovation output. The global innovation playbook is being rewritten. The assumption that high GDP per capita is a prerequisite for leadership is being challenged. The critical question: Is innovation becoming more democratic, or just more concentrated under state-led strategy? What’s your take? 💬 What’s the most underestimated driver of China’s innovation efficiency? _____ #innovation #China #Germany #technology #globalcompetition #ashleytalks

Today a bit more about the Startmate Accelerator. I get to run this cohort. …and I made some fundamental changes / more pronounced points. The Accelerator is the beating heart of Startmate. For the current Winter23 cohort, I’ve had the pleasure of diving into the operational depths of running the cohort of 13 ambitious startups. Every so often we get stuck in the status quo. Do things the way they have been done before. “Because they work” “Because that’s what’s expected” An Accelerator easily falls prey to that as we all now have expectations on what an Accelerator is - a program, high NPS, sessions, mentoring, coworking, business basics, strategy, fundraising. Let’s remove the label. Let’s step out of that limiting box of a definition. What’s most important is that founders truly understand their customer. 1. Are you building the right thing? 2. Are you building for the right person? Everything else, including in particular fundraising, is a function of how well you understand your customer problem. Who cares about “running an Accelerator”, instead what we care about is founders solving real customer problems. Having run Startmate for 5 years now and worked with 10 cohorts (150+ founders), I made a couple of fundamental changes and points much more explicit. 1️⃣ Customer First - Always The highest priority is founders’ talking to their customers. Full stop. I’ve stripped out all distractions throughout “the program”. If a founder doesn’t show up to a single session or talk to a single mentor, but talks to customers every single day - I consider it a win. By talking to customers, founders figure out: 1. Am I building the right thing? >> problem, product 2. Who am I building it for? >> marketing, sales 2️⃣ The Right Support at the time You need it We’re here to accelerate founders through customer discoveries, not make ourselves feel good. We have the most incredible mentors and we’re here to: 1. Keep founders accountable to talking to customers and stay intellectually honest in their reflections to make the right decisions 2. Be there at the right time at the right place to be a sounding board when the founders need it We don’t spoon-feed founders. We provide a buffet of opportunities to tap into at the right time. 3️⃣ No Fundraising Our founders are not fundraising. They are going all-in on customer discovery. This shift in thinking is a massive weight off founders’ shoulders to not have to entertain fundraising conversations, constant context switching and pitch deck distractions BUT give themselves permission to pursue what they care about most - their customers. For the first 10 weeks, the cohort is just focused on customers. In week 11 (week of 18th Sept), we’ll run a condensed 5-day investment sprint to get ready to raise. THEN with all the investment tools in place, armed with a deep customer understanding, validation and proof, the founders will decide when and how to raise on their terms.

“Keeping up with AI is tough." I hear this often. And it’s true if you’re tracking every model release, tool update, or enhancement launch. Instead, I focus on patterns that drive systemic change in Applied AI. Looking back over the past 2–3 years, I’ve observed four key patterns that have reshaped AI adoption and forced teams to rethink their system designs: 🔹 Iterative LLMs: Enhancing reasoning through Chain-of-Thought (CoT), ReAct prompting, and iterative model calls. 🔹Evolving LLMs: Leveraging techniques like LoRA and distillation to improve efficiency and adaptability. 🔹Grounded LLMs: Ensuring factual accuracy via retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and enterprise knowledge integration. 🔹Connected LLMs: Integrating LLMs into larger business systems and automation, such as AI agents or Model Context Protocols (MCPs), for seamless interoperability. Everything else was mostly incremental updates, often more marketing than true technological leaps. Execution fatigue is real in AI, and adoption is the hardest part. Constantly jumping from one idea to another creates a never-ending loop of experimentation with little value delivered. Be intentional about what you track. When we say, “Attention is all you need,” it’s not just about models; it applies to you too. #ExperienceFromTheField #WrittenByHuman

Do Accelerators improve Success Rates? Leading Venture Capital Accelerators do a great job of getting into the news, and you will regularly see impressive events hosted by Techstars, Y-Combinator, and 500startups for example. In the USA alone there are 160 accelerator programs active today and globally more than 2000. Yet do they actually improve success rates? A new study published by Wharton professors Valentina Assenova and Raphael Amit examined 8580 startup companies in 408 accelerators spread throughout 176 countries between 2013 and 2019. The answer? Yes! "Accelerated startups were 3.4% more likely to raise #venturecapital and raised $1.8 Million more in the first year after graduation from these programs" according to Assenova who elaborated "They also planned to raise $2.64 million more capital, on average, over the next year. Accelerated startups also generated more revenue, hired more full-time employees, and paid for in wages to their employees, on average- indicating they were scaling faster than their peers." Interestingly enough, while most studies to date have focused on Silicon Valley or Boston in the USA for example, this study was global and notes: "This suggests that accelerators aren’t just beneficial for high-tech startups in well-established tech hubs in the United States, but also for other types of ventures in emerging startup ecosystems found in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean,” Assenova said. Program Design deeply influences success rates The factors which contributed to success include: Depth or Breadth of knowledge within cohorts Knowledge-Building programs offered by the accelerator Characteristics of the founders The study confirmed: "accelerators that include more training activities, pitching competitions, advice to certain industries, and structured learning sessions tend to improve startup business success rates." Link to the article from Knowledge at Wharton detailing the study published in the Strategic Management Journal here: https://lnkd.in/d8CK9PM3 What is your experience with Accelerator programs? #strategy #leadership