I once attended a hackathon where the organizers intentionally split people into interdisciplinary teams.
My group had an engineer, a doctor, a professor, and a data scientist working on the same problem. That part was genuinely amazing. It was one of the few events where I felt the format actually created value, because the conversation was not just “let’s build something fast,” but “let’s understand this problem from several serious perspectives.”
We were forced, in a good way, to explain our assumptions to people outside our own field. The doctor understood the clinical reality. The engineer thought about what could actually be built. The professor brought research context. The data scientist could think about what evidence or data would be needed.
The interesting thing is that the project itself was not even the only outcome. Some of us still keep in touch, share information, support each other, and occasionally exchange opportunities. That, to me, shows the real value of these events.
But I feel like this is rare.
A lot of hackathons follow the same pattern: 24 or 48 hours, little sleep, rushed teams, some mentor sessions if you are lucky, and then a 3-minute demo to a jury that barely has time to understand the problem. That can be fun, but I’m not sure it is the best format for serious research, deeptech, healthcare, AI, hardware, climate, or company/R&D collaboration.
If the goal is to connect scientists, founders, engineers, companies, investors, and domain experts, maybe the event should be designed less around the final pitch and more around the quality of the interactions.
I’m curious about other people’s experiences:
- Have you ever attended a hackathon, research sprint, company challenge, or university innovation event that led to a real collaboration?
- What made it work
- Was it the team matching, the problem selection, the mentors, the companies involved, the follow-up, or the format itself
- Have you seen better alternatives to the standard 24h hackathon
- Would longer research-like formats work better, for example 2-4 weeks around a specific scientific or technical challenge
- Should companies and domain experts be involved throughout the event instead of only judging at the end
- Are demo days even the right outcome, or should the real outcome be intros, pilots, grants, research partnerships, prototypes, or follow-up meetings
I’m especially interested in hearing from people in science, medicine, biotech, AI, hardware, climate, university research, startups, and R&D.
What event format actually helped you meet valuable people or start something useful?
And what formats felt like a complete waste of time?