Rechercher

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.

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.

La co-construction est un processus par lequel des acteurs différents confrontent leurs points de vue et s’engagent dans une transformation de ceux-ci jusqu’au moment où ils s’accordent sur des traductions qu’ils ne perçoivent plus comme incompatibles. Ce moment particulier est celui où ils pensent avoir défini un « monde commun » qui va fonder leur compromis ; ils pourront alors poursuivre leur coopération afin de construire un projet d’action commun et réfléchir ensemble à sa mise en œuvre. La notion de co-construction s’est largement diffusée dans le monde académique et non académique. Cependant, sa définition reste encore aujourd’hui incertaine et fait l’objet de propositions dans la littérature grise des dossiers, finalisée par des institutions (certains conseils généraux, entre autres) ou des cabinets conseil. Pratiquement aucun dictionnaire de sociologie ou de sciences humaines ne la définit à l’exception du Dictionnaire de la participation . « Le terme co-construction est devenu depuis quelques années très en vue. Il se retrouve dans beaucoup d’articles et livres à portée académique. L’univers professionnel n’en est pas moins en reste où cette approche de gestion semble l’un des moyens pour pérenniser la performance des organisations. Néanmoins, lorsque l’on s’y attarde un peu plus en profondeur, on constate qu’il est davantage cité que conceptualisé. Très peu d’auteurs s’y sont réellement attardés ». C’est une notion ambiguë et la proximité avec des notions voisines plus académiques comme la coopération n’est sans doute pas une condition facilitatrice pour une explicitation de ses dimensions propres…

La co-construction est un processus par lequel des acteurs différents confrontent leurs points de vue et s’engagent dans une transformation de ceux-ci jusqu’au moment où ils s’accordent sur des traductions qu’ils ne perçoivent plus comme incompatibles. Ce moment particulier est celui où ils pensent avoir défini un « monde commun » qui va fonder leur compromis ; ils pourront alors poursuivre leur coopération afin de construire un projet d’action commun et réfléchir ensemble à sa mise en œuvre. La notion de co-construction s’est largement diffusée dans le monde académique et non académique. Cependant, sa définition reste encore aujourd’hui incertaine et fait l’objet de propositions dans la littérature grise des dossiers, finalisée par des institutions (certains conseils généraux, entre autres) ou des cabinets conseil. Pratiquement aucun dictionnaire de sociologie ou de sciences humaines ne la définit à l’exception du Dictionnaire de la participation . « Le terme co-construction est devenu depuis quelques années très en vue. Il se retrouve dans beaucoup d’articles et livres à portée académique. L’univers professionnel n’en est pas moins en reste où cette approche de gestion semble l’un des moyens pour pérenniser la performance des organisations. Néanmoins, lorsque l’on s’y attarde un peu plus en profondeur, on constate qu’il est davantage cité que conceptualisé. Très peu d’auteurs s’y sont réellement attardés ». C’est une notion ambiguë et la proximité avec des notions voisines plus académiques comme la coopération n’est sans doute pas une condition facilitatrice pour une explicitation de ses dimensions propres…

Analysis of factors (antecedents) influencing the introduction and fate of innovations and their organizations (I&O) has been limited. Most of the innovation literature has focused on introduction and dissemination but not fate of I&O. It often found ideology and politics were not important in introduction of I&O. Glor (2017a, b) studied six factors influencing the introduction and survival/mortality of the first introduction in USA and Canada of ten public sector I&O introduced by the Government of Saskatchewan, (GoS), a Canadian provincial government, 1971 to the present. She reported assessment of their antecedent factors before introduction (Time 1) and those factors again at the time of survival/termination, 15 to 46 years later (Time 2). Introduction and survival/termination are defined by their appearance in/disappearance from Budget Estimates, annual reports and Public Accounts. I&O studied were the full sub-population of income security I&O introduced. A new, valid instrument was used to assess the influences, examining six factors and some clusters thought by three experts to have influenced their introduction and fate. The expert raters responded to 1267 statements (items), 555 pairs between times 1 and 2 distributed on five-point Likert scales. For all ten I&O, the factors ideology, politics, economy, external support, resources and effects were considered. In this paper, factors and clusters of factors are explored to attempt to predict survival or termination in Time 2, using means, analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t-test and logistic regression analyses. Clusters were considered, such as external/internal clusters, external cluster and external support factor compared to economy factor and internal cluster. The best combination of factors and clusters for predicting introduction of I&O in Time 1 was found to be economy factor and internal cluster (resources, effects). The best combination for predicting fate (survival/ termination) in Time 2 was political cluster (ideology, politics) and external support factor. These results are important for practitioners, to point the way to successful introduction of I&O and for scholars, to understand important influences on fate. The dominance of resource factors in introduction was as expected and consistent with the literature. The capacity to predict either survival or termination had not been studied before: Political factors dominated survival and termination.

Analysis of factors (antecedents) influencing the introduction and fate of innovations and their organizations (I&O) has been limited. Most of the innovation literature has focused on introduction and dissemination but not fate of I&O. It often found ideology and politics were not important in introduction of I&O. Glor (2017a, b) studied six factors influencing the introduction and survival/mortality of the first introduction in USA and Canada of ten public sector I&O introduced by the Government of Saskatchewan, (GoS), a Canadian provincial government, 1971 to the present. She reported assessment of their antecedent factors before introduction (Time 1) and those factors again at the time of survival/termination, 15 to 46 years later (Time 2). Introduction and survival/termination are defined by their appearance in/disappearance from Budget Estimates, annual reports and Public Accounts. I&O studied were the full sub-population of income security I&O introduced. A new, valid instrument was used to assess the influences, examining six factors and some clusters thought by three experts to have influenced their introduction and fate. The expert raters responded to 1267 statements (items), 555 pairs between times 1 and 2 distributed on five-point Likert scales. For all ten I&O, the factors ideology, politics, economy, external support, resources and effects were considered. In this paper, factors and clusters of factors are explored to attempt to predict survival or termination in Time 2, using means, analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t-test and logistic regression analyses. Clusters were considered, such as external/internal clusters, external cluster and external support factor compared to economy factor and internal cluster. The best combination of factors and clusters for predicting introduction of I&O in Time 1 was found to be economy factor and internal cluster (resources, effects). The best combination for predicting fate (survival/ termination) in Time 2 was political cluster (ideology, politics) and external support factor. These results are important for practitioners, to point the way to successful introduction of I&O and for scholars, to understand important influences on fate. The dominance of resource factors in introduction was as expected and consistent with the literature. The capacity to predict either survival or termination had not been studied before: Political factors dominated survival and termination.

Face à un environnement de plus en plus changeant et complexe, les organisations doivent continûment adapter leurs modes de fonctionnement internes. S’appuyer sur l’intelligence collaborative est devenu, à cet égard, un enjeu majeur. En tant que nouvel actif stratégique, le collaboratif renforce, au niveau de l’organisation, le décloisonnement et l’agilisation et, au niveau individuel, la responsabilisation et le sentiment d’appartenance. Si de nombreux dispositifs collaboratifs existent déjà, peu encore permettent un traitement des programmes de transformation en mode interentreprises. Le SwitchLab, conçu en 2018 par deux spécialistes de l’innovation managériale, permet de façon originale de booster des projets d’organisation concrets. Cet ouvrage présente en détail les principes, modalités et apports de ce nouveau dispositif d’échange inter-organisationnel, tout en montrant de quelle façon il s’inscrit dans une logique « d’entreprise étendue », de « pair-à-pair » et de « collaboration ouverte ».

Face à un environnement de plus en plus changeant et complexe, les organisations doivent continûment adapter leurs modes de fonctionnement internes. S’appuyer sur l’intelligence collaborative est devenu, à cet égard, un enjeu majeur. En tant que nouvel actif stratégique, le collaboratif renforce, au niveau de l’organisation, le décloisonnement et l’agilisation et, au niveau individuel, la responsabilisation et le sentiment d’appartenance. Si de nombreux dispositifs collaboratifs existent déjà, peu encore permettent un traitement des programmes de transformation en mode interentreprises. Le SwitchLab, conçu en 2018 par deux spécialistes de l’innovation managériale, permet de façon originale de booster des projets d’organisation concrets. Cet ouvrage présente en détail les principes, modalités et apports de ce nouveau dispositif d’échange inter-organisationnel, tout en montrant de quelle façon il s’inscrit dans une logique « d’entreprise étendue », de « pair-à-pair » et de « collaboration ouverte ».

This article shows the diagnosis of the Interdisciplinary Rural Internship Program, PIRI, held in a university institution in order to identify elements to improve its implementation. The research is descriptive, with a mixed approach, where surveys and interviews were used to collect information. A sample of 214 students was considered, belonging to different programs of the Autonomous University Corporation of Nariño. The results indicate significant contributions from PIRI to the institutions and to the students who have participated in the program. PIRI is used in an educational space for students to develop skills and apply their knowledge on issues related to social innovation. However, there are also difficulties such as the low number of participants, together with the lack of clear procedures that allow an adequate articulation of the entities linked to PIRI. In this sense, a model was formulated to facilitate the university management of social innovation in the institution under study, which articulates the dependencies of entrepreneurship, research and social projection, so that the benefits are oriented both to the university community and to the territories.

This article shows the diagnosis of the Interdisciplinary Rural Internship Program, PIRI, held in a university institution in order to identify elements to improve its implementation. The research is descriptive, with a mixed approach, where surveys and interviews were used to collect information. A sample of 214 students was considered, belonging to different programs of the Autonomous University Corporation of Nariño. The results indicate significant contributions from PIRI to the institutions and to the students who have participated in the program. PIRI is used in an educational space for students to develop skills and apply their knowledge on issues related to social innovation. However, there are also difficulties such as the low number of participants, together with the lack of clear procedures that allow an adequate articulation of the entities linked to PIRI. In this sense, a model was formulated to facilitate the university management of social innovation in the institution under study, which articulates the dependencies of entrepreneurship, research and social projection, so that the benefits are oriented both to the university community and to the territories.

Addressing a largely underexplored research field, this article centres on the development of indicators to grasp social innovation at different analytical levels: organisational innovativeness, regional innovation capacity, and resonance, to position social innovation in the broader field of innovation.

As we grapple with how to respond to some of the world’s most pressing problems, such as inequality, poverty and climate change, there is growing global interest in ‘social innovation’ as a potential solution. But what exactly is ‘social innovation’? This book describes three ways to theorise social innovation when seeking to manage and organize for both social and economic progress.

As we grapple with how to respond to some of the world’s most pressing problems, such as inequality, poverty and climate change, there is growing global interest in ‘social innovation’ as a potential solution. But what exactly is ‘social innovation’? This book describes three ways to theorise social innovation when seeking to manage and organize for both social and economic progress.

Recent studies regarding Social Innovation (SI) represent a small percentage of the academic research, and as a consequence the methodologies, focuses, and practices about this topic have not been consolidated. The social innovations generate intangible benefits, mainly qualitative, which makes it difficult to evaluate, even though few authors have indicated the distinguishable characteristics of SI there is not consensus about how to measure it. This document presents the results of a research project with the main objective of identifying the criteria distinguishing SI, and to propose a tool to facilitate its measurement, tracing, and potential assessment. A systematic criteria revision was performed along with a comparative study of eight SI projects from Latin America, prioritizing such criteria. With this information a proposal was developed, including the criteria, associated questions and ponderations. In order to validate the utility of this tool, the evaluation of the project "Implementation of a Solar-Eolic hybrid system in a school in remoted and insolated areas" was performed. The evaluation process allowed to inquire and discover the weaknesses and to explore the limiting causes for every criterion, giving place for recommendations directed to the developers and beneficiaries of the project. Throughout this tool it can be determined whether a project can be considered a successful SI or not; in case of not being successful, the method exerts a simple view of the characteristics that need improvement.

<p>Social innovations bring about novel ways to address societal challenges and ultimately aim at creating social impact by improving the condition of individuals, communities, and the planet. We define “social impact” as improvements in wellbeing, quality of life, life satisfaction, or living standards or, in an inverse view, reductions in social needs or hindrances that deprive one of the capability to live a good life. Assessing the extent of the social impact created by a given social innovation is essential to assess the relevance and the efficiency of the social innovation, to monitor it, and, ultimately, replicate and diffuse it. Yet assessing social impact is a complex process. This chapter maps the current knowledge on social impact assessment to allow researchers and innovators alike to make sense of the multiplicity of approaches currently available and to overcome the challenges associated with their implementations, particularly when it comes to promote inclusion of the most disenfranchised. The authors review the main approaches to assessing social impact and discuss the challenges associated with social impact assessment. Building upon this analysis, they propose a model that relates stages and needs in the innovation cycle with relevant social impact assessment approaches. They finally discuss future research directions that could help social impact assessment better drive social innovation and impact. </p>

This chapter is about evidence and whether we can, or should, know our impact, the effect we have in the world. It addresses the difficulties as well as the possibilities of evidence for innovators and politicians, civil servants and head teachers, charities and doctors. I also touch on the question at the level of daily life, the moral question of whether we help those around us to be healthier, happier and more prosperous. Knowing our own impacts is, I argue, as much a moral prerogative as the traditional philosophical injunction of knowing ourselves.The enlightenment storyMany of us imbibed from an early age what can be called the enlightenment story. In this story new knowledge is steadily accumulated, mainly in universities and from academic journals. Theories are invented, tested, refuted and then improved. Scepticism helps to refine them and, as Wittgenstein wrote, the child first learns belief and only then learns doubt. You could say that at school we learn knowledge, and then at university we learn to question that knowledge.Belief is strengthened precisely because it has already been knocked down. And so, accumulating knowledge shows that this medicine, that economic policy or this teaching method works and many others don’t. The successful method then spreads, because when you design a better mousetrap the world beats a path to your door. It spreads because people are rational and want to do better and are persuaded by evidence. And so, the world progresses. Light replaces darkness. Effective solutions displace failed ones.It's easy to mock the enlightenment story. The sociologists of science have shown a much messier pattern of change – full of barriers, wilful resistance and peer pressure. But the old enlightenment story contains a good deal of truth and is preferable to the alternatives. Because of intense pressures to act on evidence, and habits of doubt among maintenance staff and engineers, aircraft do not drop out of the sky. Smoking made the slow progress from evidence of harm, through taxes and warnings to full-scale bans, and millions of lives were saved.Experimental methods have been used for many decades.

This chapter is about evidence and whether we can, or should, know our impact, the effect we have in the world. It addresses the difficulties as well as the possibilities of evidence for innovators and politicians, civil servants and head teachers, charities and doctors. I also touch on the question at the level of daily life, the moral question of whether we help those around us to be healthier, happier and more prosperous. Knowing our own impacts is, I argue, as much a moral prerogative as the traditional philosophical injunction of knowing ourselves.The enlightenment storyMany of us imbibed from an early age what can be called the enlightenment story. In this story new knowledge is steadily accumulated, mainly in universities and from academic journals. Theories are invented, tested, refuted and then improved. Scepticism helps to refine them and, as Wittgenstein wrote, the child first learns belief and only then learns doubt. You could say that at school we learn knowledge, and then at university we learn to question that knowledge.Belief is strengthened precisely because it has already been knocked down. And so, accumulating knowledge shows that this medicine, that economic policy or this teaching method works and many others don’t. The successful method then spreads, because when you design a better mousetrap the world beats a path to your door. It spreads because people are rational and want to do better and are persuaded by evidence. And so, the world progresses. Light replaces darkness. Effective solutions displace failed ones.It's easy to mock the enlightenment story. The sociologists of science have shown a much messier pattern of change – full of barriers, wilful resistance and peer pressure. But the old enlightenment story contains a good deal of truth and is preferable to the alternatives. Because of intense pressures to act on evidence, and habits of doubt among maintenance staff and engineers, aircraft do not drop out of the sky. Smoking made the slow progress from evidence of harm, through taxes and warnings to full-scale bans, and millions of lives were saved.Experimental methods have been used for many decades.

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.