The Architected Innov􏰂ation Institute - Engineering Scientific Revolutions

  • The core idea is that there is an organization that hosts “Architects”
  • Architect may be a better term for PMs
  • Principles
    • Architects must be omnidisciplinary
      • Architects need to know multiple fields at multiple levels of abstraction
      • Need to be able to seek out detailed technical consulting from larger groups of experts
    • Architects must care only for enduring Impact
      • ::How do you se up incentives to do this?::
    • Roadmap problems systematically and comprehensively
      • The typical notion of interdisciplinary research is to optimize for serendipity
        • ::Extension Need to engineer who is in the room?::
      • A key to roadmapping is to evaluate all possible solutions in a maximally unbiased way - working backwards from the problem
    • Avoid being a fixed set of people
      • The very notion of a finite institution saving a complete problem on its own might be an instance of push thinking
    • Be agnostic to where collaborators come from
      • No matter how great your institute, most of the relevant people are not going to pack up and move to it
    • Create and leverage trusted networks
      • How to create trusted networks
        • Pairwise interactions between architects and potential team members
        • Pay attention to who works well together, public vs private information
        • Architects need ‘unimpeachable’ creditability
    • Design around problems rather than debugging through them
      • Use existing arts whenever possible - it forces you to find things
      • Outsource everything possible
      • View skills as commodities
  • “Latent Architects”

  • §Academia Constraints

  • §Startup Constraints

  • Features of the Architected Innovation Institution

    1. Act catalytically
      • Estimate 5000 sqft for 10 architects and $25m/year
      • Dynamic funding is important
    2. Generate strategies and act flexibly to execute on strategies
      Possible moves
    3. Creates a core capability in ground truth biological analysis
    4. Core services to facilitate efforts
      • Need to have technical people on staff
    5. Provides flexible mechanisms of support for exceptional individuals who do not fit in elsewhere
      • Maintain “fellows” with no projects or goals
  • Punts on funding question





  • Possibly a great intermediate step for §PARPA - at $25m/year level
  • Think of PARPA planning in terms of money



  • Adam Marblestone


Web URL for this note

Comment on this note