Connecting Dots is the monthly newsletter for innovation leaders by Brett Macfarlane.

◎⁃◎

Innovation’s Relational Infrastructure

As I write this, I’m sitting on a bench outside the newsagent Sheeriji on London’s Chiltern Street at 10:11am on a Saturday—an ideal perch to observe the relational infrastructure of a Marylebone neighbourhood that quietly supports some of the city’s most dynamic innovators and entrepreneurs.

Beside me, a woman chats with a friend, pausing every few minutes to greet acquaintances passing by. People of all ages and backgrounds—some with deep pockets, others not—exchange quick updates on projects, collaborations, and life. What stands out isn’t the ideas, technical details, or even the individuals, but the relationships between them.

At a time when many feel less personally connected, there’s a growing sensitivity to—and demand for—strong relational infrastructure. I saw this clearly a week ago back home in Vancouver, where the idea resonated deeply at Vancity Innovation House, a homegrown beacon during Web Summit week.

On a panel about building innovative infrastructure in Canada, I was asked whether it’s a bad strategy or a bad culture that kills innovation. We discussed that while having a good strategy and/or good culture is better, it’s not a prerequisite. Some organizations with strong strategy and culture lack the urgency to innovate, while others produce breakthrough ideas despite dysfunction or weak strategy and culture.

What consistently kills innovation is weak relational infrastructure.

Relational infrastructure is built on two dimensions: density and intensity. Density is the number of relationships willing to work together. Intensity is the emotional capital distributed across those relationships—fuelling psychological safety, group reflexivity, capabilities, and resilience. People don’t need to like each other, but they do need to be motivated to work together collaboratively.

This doesn’t stop at the team or organizational level. Whether within a single company or across a multi-party ecosystem, success depends on the strength of relationships both within and between groups. Like infrastructure in the physical world, individual connections only matter if they link together to form a functional network.

In complex adaptive systems—whether ecosystems or global organizations—it helps to visualize a relational graph. Innovation always operates under constraints of time and resources, which makes prioritization essential. What matters most is not just the presence of connections, but their strength.

Stakeholders tend to fall into three groups:

Allies — nurture strategically to increase velocity
Adversaries — engage directly to mitigate risk
Aloof — remain respectful but selective to reduce inefficiency

A common trap for innovation leaders is trying to win universal support. In reality, stakeholders are busy with their primary responsibilities. Even if they intellectually support innovation, it often requires significant cognitive, emotional, and reputational investment to actively engage.

By observing how stakeholders behave—not just what they say—you can map your system and assess its true strength. This allows you to make deliberate decisions about where to invest your limited time, energy, and resources to strengthen relational infrastructure and improve your odds of success.

It’s also simply more enjoyable to build with others. The better you understand each other—especially how you respond under pressure—the more capable your organization becomes at delivering meaningful innovation. You might even turn a few adversaries or aloof stakeholders into allies. Or not. :-)

◎⁃◎

Questions, reflections and feedback to info@brettmacfarlane.com