Rechercher

Potential contributions of universities to social innovation are explored with special attention to Southern countries. The normative guide is the notion of Sustainable Human Development understood as stressing the agency of least-advantaged sectors. The main challenges stem from decreasing sustainability and increasing inequality. Their impacts are highly dependent on how the tension between economic growth and environmental protection is managed. Improving actual perspectives demands harnessing advanced knowledge to foster inclusive and frugal innovation. For this to occur, universities need to be main actors. The context in which they act is analyzed with reference to the National Systems of Innovation conceptualization. Possible evolutions of universities as agents of social innovation are discussed with the aid of the Multi-Level Perspective. The importance of the Southern experience of innovating in scarcity conditions is highlighted and illustrated with the specific experience of a Latin American university. The cooperation of universities with weak social actors in ways that involve advanced knowledge appears as a key theoretical issue and as a difficult practical problem for the effective engagement of universities in social innovation. The diverse issues that such engagement needs to integrate conform an ambitious research program, of which the paper aims at giving a first glimpse.

How can all those who have something relevant to contribute to a research project be identified? In particular, how can we find those who, through their experience of being affec…

The aim of this study is to provide new insights into the social innovation (SI) development process in the context of social start-ups. A multiple case study identifies the issues and mechanisms for social start-ups to develop a social need into a potentially scalable innovation and to validate and scale it up, while avoiding a possible failure. Results show that key challenges faced by social start-ups can be characterized according to the stage of the SI development path. Firstly, social start-ups' failure can be caused by the lack of expertise in social problems and of flexible processes for social ventures creation; secondly, by the lack of awareness of SI benefits and proper resources allocation; and, finally, by a weak understanding of the impact and intangible outcomes of the developed SI in society, while ensuring its economic sustainability. Successfully overcoming these challenges requires social start-ups to put in place the following mechanisms: (1) leveraging a vision and motivations that balance tensions in terms of the radical, economic and cultural aspects of SI; (2) engaging the SI stakeholders in different (and sequential) phases of SI development process; and (3) identifying and adopting the most suitable technological, financial and communication tools in an integrated way.

The aim of this study is to provide new insights into the social innovation (SI) development process in the context of social start-ups. A multiple case study identifies the issues and mechanisms for social start-ups to develop a social need into a potentially scalable innovation and to validate and scale it up, while avoiding a possible failure. Results show that key challenges faced by social start-ups can be characterized according to the stage of the SI development path. Firstly, social start-ups' failure can be caused by the lack of expertise in social problems and of flexible processes for social ventures creation; secondly, by the lack of awareness of SI benefits and proper resources allocation; and, finally, by a weak understanding of the impact and intangible outcomes of the developed SI in society, while ensuring its economic sustainability. Successfully overcoming these challenges requires social start-ups to put in place the following mechanisms: (1) leveraging a vision and motivations that balance tensions in terms of the radical, economic and cultural aspects of SI; (2) engaging the SI stakeholders in different (and sequential) phases of SI development process; and (3) identifying and adopting the most suitable technological, financial and communication tools in an integrated way.

Qu’est ce que l’intelligence collective ? Comment mettre en œuvre l’intelligence collective dans les équipes et les pratiques quotidiennes ? Quelles gouvernances favorisent l\'intelligence collective ? Comment développer des manières de travailler collaboratives ? Vous saurez bientôt répondre à toutes ces questions, en utilisant les 66 outils de ce livre indispensable pour réussir la mise en place de l\'intelligence collective dans votre équipe ou votre entreprise.

Qu’est ce que l’intelligence collective ? Comment mettre en œuvre l’intelligence collective dans les équipes et les pratiques quotidiennes ? Quelles gouvernances favorisent l\'intelligence collective ? Comment développer des manières de travailler collaboratives ? Vous saurez bientôt répondre à toutes ces questions, en utilisant les 66 outils de ce livre indispensable pour réussir la mise en place de l\'intelligence collective dans votre équipe ou votre entreprise.

Qu’est ce que l’intelligence collective ? Comment mettre en œuvre l’intelligence collective dans les équipes et les pratiques quotidiennes ? Quelles gouvernances favorisent l\'intelligence collective ? Comment développer des manières de travailler collaboratives ? Vous saurez bientôt répondre à toutes ces questions, en utilisant les 66 outils de ce livre indispensable pour réussir la mise en place de l\'intelligence collective dans votre équipe ou votre entreprise.

Les Living Labs (LLs) sont de nouvelles formes de laboratoires mettant en œuvre des approches collaboratives et expérimentales centrées sur les utilisateurs. Récemment, les capacités des LLs à développer des réseaux d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs ont été soulignées. Mais les recherches sont encore peu nombreuses, alors même que le phénomène ne cesse d’évoluer en pratique. En s’appuyant sur l’analyse longitudinale d’une initiative en cours, les « Concept Maturity Levels Santé », impulsée par le Forum des Living Labs en Santé et Autonomie, cet article présente une recherche abductive visant à explorer et caractériser la manière dont les LLs peuvent contribuer, au-delà de projets d’innovation temporaires, à structurer des écosystèmes d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs sur le long terme. En sus de contribuer à la littérature sur les LLs, l’article ouvre de nouvelles pistes de caractérisation des écosystèmes communautaires d’innovation jusqu’ici encore peu étudiés.Code JEL : M100

Les Living Labs (LLs) sont de nouvelles formes de laboratoires mettant en œuvre des approches collaboratives et expérimentales centrées sur les utilisateurs. Récemment, les capacités des LLs à développer des réseaux d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs ont été soulignées. Mais les recherches sont encore peu nombreuses, alors même que le phénomène ne cesse d’évoluer en pratique. En s’appuyant sur l’analyse longitudinale d’une initiative en cours, les « Concept Maturity Levels Santé », impulsée par le Forum des Living Labs en Santé et Autonomie, cet article présente une recherche abductive visant à explorer et caractériser la manière dont les LLs peuvent contribuer, au-delà de projets d’innovation temporaires, à structurer des écosystèmes d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs sur le long terme. En sus de contribuer à la littérature sur les LLs, l’article ouvre de nouvelles pistes de caractérisation des écosystèmes communautaires d’innovation jusqu’ici encore peu étudiés.Code JEL : M100

Upon election in 2015, the Justin Trudeau Liberal government announced its intention to transform government operations by bringing nonprofit and private sector partners into the center of public sector decision making through new structures such as Policy Hubs and Innovation labs. These collaborative arrangements were intended to yield the benefits of Michael Barber’s theory of deliverology by breaking through the public sector aversion to risk and change and by creating new spaces for devising effective solutions to the increasingly complex social and economic challenges facing government. A preliminary examination of the use of policy hubs and innovation labs in Canada between 2015 and 2020 indicates that the results have been mixed for the nonprofit sector partners. Collaborative relations have offered nonprofit sector partners new opportunities and access to influence policy decisions. However, this influence also poses risks to their independence, legitimacy and effectiveness as policy advocates. Both public and nonprofit sector partners in PILs should heed certain cautions in choosing future partnerships or they may find their ability to achieve meaningful policy change is limited.

Upon election in 2015, the Justin Trudeau Liberal government announced its intention to transform government operations by bringing nonprofit and private sector partners into the center of public sector decision making through new structures such as Policy Hubs and Innovation labs. These collaborative arrangements were intended to yield the benefits of Michael Barber’s theory of deliverology by breaking through the public sector aversion to risk and change and by creating new spaces for devising effective solutions to the increasingly complex social and economic challenges facing government. A preliminary examination of the use of policy hubs and innovation labs in Canada between 2015 and 2020 indicates that the results have been mixed for the nonprofit sector partners. Collaborative relations have offered nonprofit sector partners new opportunities and access to influence policy decisions. However, this influence also poses risks to their independence, legitimacy and effectiveness as policy advocates. Both public and nonprofit sector partners in PILs should heed certain cautions in choosing future partnerships or they may find their ability to achieve meaningful policy change is limited.

For decades, the cooperative enterprise (CE) produces market goods and/or provides services in the interest to its members, such as communities, customers, and suppliers. The upsurge of interest in social enterprises, and their balancing of social and economic interests, has also led to a renewed interest in CEs, often seen as a specific type of social enterprise. However, from an organizational perspective, this renewed interest has been both limited and scattered over a variety of fields. In this paper, we systematically review papers on CE in the mainstream organizational literature, defined as literature in the fields of economics, business, management and sociology. Our review integrates and synthesizes the current topics in the mainstream organizational literature and provides a number of avenues for future research. In addition, we compare our findings in the organizational literature to the social issues literature as these appeared to be quite complimentary. We found multilevel studies, determination of social impact—in particular measurable impact, managerial practices for sustainable (organisational) development, and the entrepreneurial opportunity generation process as the four key avenues for future research.

For decades, the cooperative enterprise (CE) produces market goods and/or provides services in the interest to its members, such as communities, customers, and suppliers. The upsurge of interest in social enterprises, and their balancing of social and economic interests, has also led to a renewed interest in CEs, often seen as a specific type of social enterprise. However, from an organizational perspective, this renewed interest has been both limited and scattered over a variety of fields. In this paper, we systematically review papers on CE in the mainstream organizational literature, defined as literature in the fields of economics, business, management and sociology. Our review integrates and synthesizes the current topics in the mainstream organizational literature and provides a number of avenues for future research. In addition, we compare our findings in the organizational literature to the social issues literature as these appeared to be quite complimentary. We found multilevel studies, determination of social impact—in particular measurable impact, managerial practices for sustainable (organisational) development, and the entrepreneurial opportunity generation process as the four key avenues for future research.

Les vidéos des présentations du Sommet canadien des données ouvertes 2021 organisés par la Ville de Montréal et le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor sont disponibles en ligne. Parmi, les sujets abordés : Aubert Landry Catalogues de données : comment optimiser la co-création et la collaboration Science participative : enjeux et bénéfices L'avenir des données ouvertes Une IA éthique et transparente Les données ouvertes pour l'équité et l'inclusion LIcence Creative Commons et données ouvertes La transparence et les droits des peuples autochtones : souveraineté des données et données...

Les vidéos des présentations du Sommet canadien des données ouvertes 2021 organisés par la Ville de Montréal et le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor sont disponibles en ligne. Parmi, les sujets abordés : Aubert Landry Catalogues de données : comment optimiser la co-création et la collaboration Science participative : enjeux et bénéfices L'avenir des données ouvertes Une IA éthique et transparente Les données ouvertes pour l'équité et l'inclusion LIcence Creative Commons et données ouvertes La transparence et les droits des peuples autochtones : souveraineté des données et données...

Les vidéos des présentations du Sommet canadien des données ouvertes 2021 organisés par la Ville de Montréal et le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor sont disponibles en ligne. Parmi, les sujets abordés : Aubert Landry Catalogues de données : comment optimiser la co-création et la collaboration Science participative : enjeux et bénéfices L'avenir des données ouvertes Une IA éthique et transparente Les données ouvertes pour l'équité et l'inclusion LIcence Creative Commons et données ouvertes La transparence et les droits des peuples autochtones : souveraineté des données et données...

Les vidéos des présentations du Sommet canadien des données ouvertes 2021 organisés par la Ville de Montréal et le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor sont disponibles en ligne. Parmi, les sujets abordés : Aubert Landry Catalogues de données : comment optimiser la co-création et la collaboration Science participative : enjeux et bénéfices L'avenir des données ouvertes Une IA éthique et transparente Les données ouvertes pour l'équité et l'inclusion Licence Creative Commons et données ouvertes La transparence et les droits des peuples autochtones : souveraineté des données et données...

Social innovation is related to new products, services, and models aiming to improve human well-being and create social relationships and collaborations. The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business. Based on the existing social innovation literature and case studies, this paper proposes an “ecosystem” approach that can provide an integrated framework for social business models. This approach adopts the quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models which are able to promote social innovation, enabling a locus-centric and triple-bottom-line-centric entrepreneurial process of knowledge discovery and exploitation. Such a framework may help to study the role, nature, and dynamics of social co-opetitive fractal ecosystems, given emphasis on civil society, political structures, environment, and sustainability. In addition, the social innovation case studies presented in this paper highlight that targeted open innovation is a key element for social BMI.

Social innovation is related to new products, services, and models aiming to improve human well-being and create social relationships and collaborations. The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business. Based on the existing social innovation literature and case studies, this paper proposes an “ecosystem” approach that can provide an integrated framework for social business models. This approach adopts the quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models which are able to promote social innovation, enabling a locus-centric and triple-bottom-line-centric entrepreneurial process of knowledge discovery and exploitation. Such a framework may help to study the role, nature, and dynamics of social co-opetitive fractal ecosystems, given emphasis on civil society, political structures, environment, and sustainability. In addition, the social innovation case studies presented in this paper highlight that targeted open innovation is a key element for social BMI.