The Network Effect: Who Advances in Open Innovation?

As Solve marks our tenth anniversary, we’re taking a closer look at what defines our approach to finding, funding, and scaling the best innovators around the world.

At the core is a simple belief: innovation can come from anywhere. Our open innovation model invites anyone, anywhere to apply. It’s designed to surface new ideas and leaders, especially from geographies and backgrounds often overlooked by traditional funding ecosystems.

But how well is that model working?

To find out, we analyzed data from the past three selection cycles, more than 6,700 applications, focusing on a key question: how “networked” are our applicants when they apply? In this scenario, we’re considering past participation in networks such as incubators, accelerators, venture capital programs, or fellowship programs aimed at solution growth.

What we found

The overall mix has remained remarkably consistent. On average, 64% of applicants are “unnetworked,” while 36% come from established entrepreneurship networks. This has held fairly steady over the past three years, even as we’ve encouraged more later-stage ventures to apply.

Across all 2023-2025 applications, we did find that those who make it further in our selection processes are more likely to be more networked, which is not surprising, given that past network selection is likely correlated with quality.

Regionality resisted easy narratives

We also looked at how network participation varies by region. Some regions, like Europe, MENA, and Latin America, have higher-than-average shares of networked applicants.

While there’s no one single explanation, a few factors may contribute.

In some regions, dense ecosystems may drive higher participation. However, this doesn’t hold with the reality of sparser existing networks in MENA and Latin America. This theory also suggests that North American applicants would be at the top of the list, but they are at the bottom of the pile for networked entrepreneurs in our dataset.

It could equally be that Solve applicants from regions that are generally less networked are particularly exceptional and disproportionately likely to have been a part of networks at home or abroad.

Different sectors, different starting points

Patterns also emerge across Solve’s pillar areas. Applicants in health, climate, and economic prosperity are more likely to have prior network experience (58 - 61% networked). By contrast, learning and Indigenous communities applicants are much less connected - 31% and 14% respectively.

In some cases, this is by design. The Indigenous Communities Fellowship prioritizes earlier-stage teams and is intentionally built to reach innovators who may not have access to traditional support systems.

Stage and structure shape access

Unsurprisingly, later-stage and for-profit ventures are more likely to be networked.

Fifty-two percent of for-profit applicants report prior participation in networks, compared to 39% of hybrids and just 19% of nonprofits. That reflects a broader reality: most accelerators and incubators are built with for-profit models in mind.

Earlier-stage teams are also less networked, though the trend becomes less linear at later stages, suggesting that some ventures may scale quickly without relying heavily on formal support systems.

Innovation is key

All applicants to Solve should include innovation in their solutions. Those with solutions underpinned by a new technology are more likely to have been a part of networks, as compared to those underpinned by a new business model or a new application of an existing technology.

This likely reflects the stronger ecosystem support and visibility available to new tech ventures.

What’s next

Networks are about both validation and access. “Networked” entrepreneurs receive more resources, visibility, and support that open doors.

While most applicants in our community continue to come from outside established entrepreneurship networks, differences across regions, sectors, and stages highlight where access gaps persist and where intentional design can help close them.

Ten years in and the mission remains. Find the best ideas, wherever they come from, and make sure access to opportunity isn’t determined by who’s already in the room.