Votre recherche

Technology is the answer, but what was the question? Introduction Many firms, charities and governments are in favour of more innovation, and like to side with the new against the old. But should they? A moment's reflection shows that it's not altogether coherent (whether intellectually, ethically or in terms of policy) to simply be in favour of innovation, whether that innovation is a product, a service or a social idea. Some innovations are unambiguously good (like penicillin or the telephone). Others are unambiguously bad (like concentration camps or nerve gas). Many are ambiguous. Pesticides kill parasites but also pollute the water supply. New surveillance technologies may increase workplace productivity but leave workers more stressed and unhappy. Smart missiles may be good for the nations deploying them and terrible for the ones on the receiving end.In finance, Paul Volcker, former head of the US Federal Reserve, said that the only good financial innovation he could think of was the automated teller machine. That was an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that many financial innovations destroyed more value than they created, even as they enriched their providers, and that regulators and policy makers failed to distinguish the good from the bad, with very costly results. In technology, too, a similar scepticism had emerged by the late 2010s, with digital social media described as the ‘new tobacco’, associated with harm rather than good, with addiction rather than help. Or, to take another example: when the US Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm, In-QTel, invested heavily in firms like Palantir, which then became contractors for the intelligence and military (a prime example of the ‘entrepreneurial state’), it was far from obvious how much this was good or bad for the world.The traditional justification for a capitalist market economy is that the net effects of market-led innovation leave behind far more winners than losers, and that markets are better able to pick technologies than bureaucracies or committees. But even if, overall, the patterns of change generate more winners than losers, there are likely to be some, perhaps many, cases where the opposite happens. It would be useful to know.

This book efficiently contributes to our understanding of the interplay between data, technology and communicative practice on the one hand, and democratic participation on the other. It addresses the emergence of proactive data activism, a new sociotechnical phenomenon in the field of action that arises as a reaction to massive datafication, and makes affirmative use of data for advocacy and social change. By blending empirical observation and in-depth qualitative interviews, Gutiérrez brings to the fore a debate about the social uses of the data infrastructure and examines precisely how people employ it, in combination with other technologies, to collaborate and act for social change.

The concept of co-creation includes a wide range of participatory practices for design and decision making with stakeholders and users. Generally co-creation refers to a style of design or business practice characterized by facilitated participation in orchestrated multi-stakeholder engagements, such as structured workshops and self-organizing modes of engagement. Co-creation envelopes a wide range of skilled social practices that can considerably inform and enhance the effectiveness of organizational development, collaboration, and positive group outcomes. New modes of co-creation have emerged, evolving from legacy forms of engagement such as participatory design and charrettes and newer forms such as collaboratories, generative design, sprints, and labs. Often sessions are structured by methods that recommend common steps or stages, as in design thinking workshops, and some are explicitly undirected and open. While practices abound, we find almost no research theorizing the effectiveness of these models compared to conventional structures of facilitation. As co-creation approaches have become central to systemic design, service design, and participatory design practices, a practice theory from which models might be selected and modified would offer value to practitioners and the literature. The framework that follows was evolved from and assessed by a practice theory of dialogic design. It is intended to guide the development of principles-based guidelines for co-creation practice, which might methodologically bridge the wide epistemological variances that remain unacknowledged in stakeholder co-creation practice.

L’entreprise ReSanté-Vous est positionnée sur le secteur de la santé, à destination des personnes âgées. Elle a élaboré une proposition de valeur fondée sur l’innovation sociale. L’étude du cas de ce business model permet de discuter des critères permettant de définir un tel métier, et dans quelle mesure les modèles existants sont bien adaptés à ses dimensions sociales et solidaires, ou de création de valeur sociétale. L’exposé du cas débouche sur l’identification d’une série de forces et faiblesses du modèle économique, et la nécessité de mieux appréhender le concept d’impact social.

Interrelations between creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurial skills of individuals have long been discussed in the literature. Due to the challenges regarding their measurement, most studies focused on the intentions rather than the outcomes. The idea generation that requires creativity is the first stage of social innovation. The young population's creative potentials in participating social innovation practices deserve a special attention as they play a critical role in the innovativeness and entrepreneurship of societies. This study aims to explore the factors that determine the creative intentions of university students that are important in generating social innovation projects. A structured survey based on the literature was conducted among 600 management and engineering students from 3 universities from the different percentiles of the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index for 2012 of the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology. The survey included questions on the demographic characteristics, environmental factors, motivators, university/institutional context, perceptions and creative thinking attitudes. By conducting reliability and factor analysis, accuracy and validity of data is tested and the impact factors were identified. Findings reveal that visionary attitude, curiosity, exploration and learning, attitude for own creativity, self-esteem, perception about the learnability of creativity, university and social environment are components of creative thinking intentions of students and some of these factors vary by year of study and university.

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.

Social innovation and high-quality agricultural systems are important for rural development. However, there is little information on methods for measuring the process and outcome of social innovation, particularly at the regional level. This study aimed to answer the research question: Which social innovation metrics can be applied to analyze rural development at the regional level? We carried out a systematic review of the literature on factors and indicators of social innovation, assessed the characteristics of social innovation in value-added agricultural production systems in developed countries, and proposed social innovation indicators for evaluating value-added agricultural systems in developing countries. Key elements of the process and outcome dimensions of social innovation were identified and used to generate factors, subfactors, indicators, and subindicators. The literature review showed that more research is needed on the outcomes of social innovation. Future studies should investigate the social transformations promoted by rural tourism and biodiversity valorization.

Social businesses, despite having a huge potential to generate substantial and sustainable value, are often structurally and financially fragile. Technological interventions, such as social media analytics, big data, Internet of Things, and blockchain can help social businesses by leveraging the practices towards financial and operational sustainability. This study is the first of its kind in that it analyses existing scholarly works on social businesses using bibliometric analysis. In so doing, this paper presents an in-depth statistical analysis of the literature on technological interventions in sustainable social business, showcasing the development of the scholarship, major themes, and possible future research trajectories. The SCOPUS database is used to identify a large section of articles. The study shows that most of the work in social business has been done by scholars based in developed countries, with limited contributions emanating from developing countries. The study proposes a framework for the use of technology in sustainable social businesses with focus areas of research such as social innovation, digital technology, information systems, and decision making for sustainability. The results show that digital technologies are increasingly being accepted as tools for the sustainability and scalability of social businesses. The paper offers useful recommendations for future research in relevant fields.

L’innovation sociale est largement considérée comme vertueuse. Cependant, le consensus qui semble régner en la matière vient de ce que les représentations et les pratiques englobées sous ce terme recouvrent un faisceau très diversifié d’approches et de réalités. Cette polysémie permet à de nombreux auteurs de se ranger sous une même bannière alors qu’ils ont des références et des orientations distinctes, voire divergentes. L’éloge unanime de l’innovation sociale ne saurait donc faire illusion. À cet égard, un travail introductif autour de l’innovation sociale a mis en évidence deux acceptions contrastées. La première version, qui peut être qualifiée de faible, aménage le système existant, insiste sur l’importance de l’épreuve marchande et valorise l’entreprise privée dans sa capacité à trouver de nouvelles solutions aux problèmes de société. La seconde version, qui peut être désignée comme forte, affiche une visée transformatrice ; elle prône, en réaction à la démesure du capitalisme marchand, une articulation inédite entre pouvoirs publics et société civile pour répondre aux défis écologiques et sociaux. La première se contente d’une amélioration du modèle économique dominant, l’innovation s’inscrivant dans une perspective réparatrice et fonctionnelle, tandis que la seconde a pour caractéristique un questionnement critique de ce modèle, et a pour horizon une démocratisation de la société.

The dependence on digital technologies has seen a significant increase during COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure that social connectivity and work goes on, in spite of lockdowns and the physical controls on movement. Though digital learning is expected to create abundant life-long learning opportunities for learners worldwide in this challenging time, there is a danger to further impose inequalities and inadequate access to quality education and life-long learning for the unconnected or poorly connected population. This paper shares our experience of reengineering a MOOC platform as `Community led MOOCs' to serve the learning needs of most under represented single mother communities in Bario - a remote settlement of Kelabits in the Borneo Island of Malaysia. This paper then explores TRIZ based heuristic models to address the socio-technological barriers to lifelong learning and proposes TRIZ principles that can trigger social innovation and creativity in designing lifelong learning solutions for rural communities.

Social Innovation is one of the key indicators within the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Currently, service Design and its design thinking processes play a significant role in Innovation for businesses; it proved its social innovation impact in many projects building sustainable solutions. This study aims to highlight the value of implementing service design through the design thinking process in finding a sustainable solution for different social issues. Researchers achieved the aim of this study using qualitative methodology, implementing case study analysis as a method, were 28 design students have been asked to redesign missing social experiences during pandemics. These case studies explain how sustainable solutions can be generated via service design through the design thinking processes. The findings of this research highlight the value of implementing service design with its design thinking process to generate sustainable solutions for different social issues, concluding that this process can be taught and applied by designers to change their mindsets from `final outcome' to the concept of `final demand', aligning then with sustainability for social Innovation.

This article responds to increasing public and academic discourses on social innovation, which often rest on the assumption that social innovation can drive societal change and empower actors to deal with societal challenges and a retreating welfare state. In order to scrutinise this assumption, this article proposes a set of concepts to study the dynamics of transformative social innovation and underlying processes of multi-actor (dis)empowerment. First, the concept of transformative social innovation is unpacked by proposing four foundational concepts to help distinguish between different pertinent 'shades' of change and innovation: 1) social innovation, (2) system innovation, (3) game-changers, and (4) narratives of change. These concepts, invoking insights from transitions studies and social innovations literature, are used to construct a conceptual account of how transformative social innovation emerges as a co-evolutionary interaction between diverse shades of change and innovation. Second, the paper critically discusses the dialectic nature of multi-actor (dis)empowerment that underlies such processes of change and innovation. The paper then demonstrates how the conceptualisations are applied to three empirical case-studies of transformative social innovation: Impact Hub, Time Banks and Credit Unions. In the conclusion we synthesise how the concepts and the empirical examples help to understand contemporary shifts in societal power relations and the changing role of the welfare state.

Some see universities as a possible source of solutions to enable a sustainable transition and overcome societal challenges. Findings from three multisite case studies of Desis Labs, FabLabs, and Science Shops shed light on how universities can help empower communities and solve societal challenges locally. Adopting a sociotechnical and flat relational perspective inspired by science and technology studies (STS), we focus on the material and spatial aspects of how these spaces are configured, thereby ensuring practical relevance for policy makers and practitioners. Applying an analytical generalization methodology, we condense the qualitative data into a typology of three ideal space-types (i.e. affording, mediating, and impact-oriented) that represent specific configurations of actors, researchers, students, communities, spaces, infrastructure, equipment, facilitators, etc. The ideal space-types empower communities in different ways, require different resources to create and operate, and translate differently into specific local contexts.

Society is at a crossroads. Interconnected systems, radical transparency, and rapidly increasing sophistication in skills, communications, and technologies provide a unique context for fostering social innovation at a planetary scale. We argue that unprecedented rates of systemic social change are possible for co-creating a future where humans and all life can thrive. Yet, this requires innovation in the conceptions, practice, teaching, and researching of social innovation itself to reimagine what it is and can be. As a multidisciplinary group of academics, practitioners, and educators, we integrate our perspectives on social innovation and humanistic management to suggest the notion of systemic social innovation. We introduce the concept of “transformative collaboration” as central to facilitating systemic social innovation and propose a multilevel model for accelerating systems change. We then develop an integrated framework for conceptualizing systemic social innovation. Four levels of social impact are identified, and these levels are bracketed with a call for transforming individual consciousness at the micro level and new collective mindsets at the macro level. Blooom is presented as a case study to illustrate transformative collaboration, demonstrate the role of mindset shift in practice, and introduce four key ingredients to systemic social innovation. Finally, a call to action is issued for social innovation practice, teaching, and research. Most importantly, we seek to inspire and accelerate systemic social innovation that enables the flourishing of every human being and all life on earth.

The 21st century has brought a cornucopia of new knowledge and technologies. But there has been little progress in our ability to solve social problems using social innovation – the deliberate invention of new solutions to meet social needs - across the globe. Geoff Mulgan is a pioneer in the global field of social innovation. Building on his experience advising international governments, businesses and foundations, he explains how it provides answers to today’s global social, economic and sustainability issues. He argues for matching R&D in technology and science with a socially focused R&D and harnessing creative imagination on a larger scale than ever before. Weaving together history, ideas, policy and practice, he shows how social innovation is now coming of age, offering a comprehensive view of what can be done to solve the global social challenges we face.

In this chapter I turn to how social science can be adapted to the challenges and tools of the 2020s, becoming more data driven, more experimental and fuelled by more dynamic feedback between theory and practice. Social science at its grandest is the way societies understand themselves: why they cohere or fall apart; why some grow and others shrink; why some care and others hate; how big structural forces explain the apparently special facts of our own biographies. It observes but also shapes action, and then learns from those actions.Starting with the idea of social science as collective selfknowledge, I describe how new approaches to intelligence of all kinds can help to reinvigorate it. I begin with data and computational social science and then move on to cover the idea of social R&D and experimentation, new ways for universities to link into practice, including social science parks, accelerators tied to social goals, challenge-based methods and social labs of all kinds, before concluding with the core argument: an account of how social science can engage with the emerging field of intelligence design. This is, I hope, a plausible and desirable direction of travel.The rise of data-driven and computational social ScienceWe are all familiar with the extraordinary explosion of new ways to observe social phenomena, which are bound to change how we ask social questions and how we answer them. Each of us leaves a data trail of whom we talk to, what we eat and where we go. It's easier than ever to survey people, to spot patterns, to scrape the web, to pick up data from sensors or to interpret moods from facial expressions. It's easier than ever to gather perceptions and emotions as well as material facts – for example, through sentiment analysis of public debates. And it's easier than ever for organisations to practise social science – whether it's investment organisations analysing market patterns, human resources departments using behavioural science or local authorities using ethnography.These tools are not monopolised by professional social scientists. In cities, for example, offices of data analytics link multiple data sets and governments use data to feed tools using AI – like Predpol or HART – to predict who is most likely to go to hospital or end up in prison.

The aim of this research is to explore the dynamics and impact of open social innovation, within the context of fab labs and makerspaces. Using an exploratory methodology based on 12 semi-structured interviews of fab lab founders belonging to The Centres for Maker Innovation and Technology (CMIT) programme – a network of 170 fab labs located in Eastern Europe – this research explores the impact of an adopting an open approach in relation to the different stages of social innovation (prompts, proposals, prototypes, sustaining, scaling and diffusion, systemic change) as well as social impact. The main results of this study are that while the CMIT programme provided each fab lab with similar initial conditions (identical funding, objectives and rules), the open social innovation approached adopted enabled to give birth to a wide diversity of fab labs, each being very well adapted to the local environment, social needs and constraints and able to deliver social impact in just a matter of years; a result that would be hard to achieve with a centralised top-down approach. The study identified three types of CMITs – Education, Industry and Residential – which could be similar or different depending on the stage of social open innovation. Furthermore, this paper discusses the main difficulties social entrepreneurs encounter as a part of the open social innovation process, as well as means to overcome them. In this respect, this study adds to the literature on fab labs by providing more comprehensive view of the challenges faced by fab labs (and makerspaces) founders, as well as suggestions of strategies enabling to ensure their long-term sustainability.

The main purpose of this article is to introduce the Social Enterprise Model Canvas (SEMC), a Business Model Canvas (BMC) conceived for designing the organizational settings of social enterprises, for resolving the mission measurement paradox, and for meeting the strategy, legitimacy and governance challenges. The SEMC and the analysis that explains its features are of interest to academics concerned with the study of social entrepreneurship because they offer a new analytical tool that is particularly useful for untangling and comparing different forms of social enterprises. Also, it is of interest to social entrepreneurs, because the SEMC is a platform that can be used to prevent 'mission drifts' that might result from problems emerging from the mismanagement of such challenges. The arguments presented are grounded on scientific literature from multiple disciplines and fields, on a critical review of the BMC, and on a case study. The main features of SEMC that makes it an alternative to the BMC are attention to social value and building blocks that take into consideration non-targeted stakeholders, principles of governance, the involvement of customers and targeted beneficiaries, mission values, short-term objectives, impact and output measures.

From the perspective of sustainability, this paper analyzes how stakeholders realize sustainable social innovation through co-creation. Through literature and case analysis, based on the group classification of social networks, this paper proposes three elements of social innovation: place creation, situation creation and relationship structure, and further sorts out the co-creation of meaning co-creation, behavior co-creation and value co-creation. The research shows that co-creation is a practical activity based on cultural identity, group interaction and resource integration, and stakeholders can achieve the goal of sustainable social innovation through meaning co-creation, behavior co-creation and value co-creation.

This book illustrates how to design and implement co-creation, a powerful form of collective creativity that harnesses the potential of teams and can generate breakthrough insights. Skilled leaders and facilitators can utilize this approach to unleash the creative potential of their organizations. Drawing from years of applied research, the authors bring together insights from the fields of design and organizational development into an evocative and pragmatic "how-to" guidebook. Taking a human-centred rather than process oriented perspective, the book argues that experience design separates true co-creation from other forms of collective efforts and design thinking. Collective moments of creative insight emerge from the space between, an experience of flow and synchronicity from which new ideas spring forth. How to create and hold this space is the secret to the art of co-creation. Collective breakthroughs require stakeholders to undergo a journey from the world of their existing expertise into spaces of new potential. It requires leaders moving from a position of dominating space to holding the space for others, and developing core capacities such as empathy and awareness so that teams can engage each other co-creatively. This book uncovers the secrets of this journey, enabling process designers to develop more effective programs.