There is a lot of preliminaries or postliminaries that are important to building up the piece. However, it’s important that it stay tightly focused. To that end it’s important to note where there are clear holes and plan for them to be filled.
What problems is the ICT addressing (contra many other “research is broken”)
::Separate:: General Constraints of existing systems
Specific Takeaway around Innovation Orgs. ::Does this want to be a separate section or woven into the different pieces?::
Principles for Innovation Orgs* This may want to be an appendix
It is important to get people on board not necessarily with the constraints of existing systems but with the constraints that ICT would be heading into - specifically, the nature of profit around research and the nature of fairness around research.
Organizations with structures worth learning from. Academic papers traditionally do a review of prior work. Since we’re talking about institutions, it’s important to do an institutional review instead of a literature review. It shows that I’ve done my research and gives people frameworks to think about innovation organizations. At the same time I want to avoid couching this idea completely in the context of “what about other organizations?” It’s worthwhile to pay attention to whenever an organization is particularly worth paying attention to it and hyperlinking to the part
Definitions and core ideas. These are probably worth defining lightly in the piece itself and heavily elsewhere.
Need to establish the demons up front - these are the inevitable tradeoffs or intractable places where you will always be able to accuse inconsistency
It is worthwhile and possible to riff on ARPA ::This probably wants to be early as an assertion and then filled in throughout::