Votre recherche

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.

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multistakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non-standardized and non-standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multistakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non-standardized and non-standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

Interest in social innovations (SIs) from both the academic and the policy side is growing. Nonetheless, we still know little about which sustainable development goals (SDGs) SIs already address. Furthermore, only little is known about who the innovators developing and implementing SIs are. In this paper, we aim to bring more clarity and structure to the field of SIs. Firstly, a systematic literature review was conducted, before a content analysis was used to analyze the definitions used with regard to similarities. Secondly, all case studies described in the reviewed articles were then further systematically analyzed in order to identify the social or environmental problems addressed and the innovators involved. For the purpose of classifying the diverse types of problems, we used the globally known and broadly accepted 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). Results showed that most SI case studies deal with an improvement of health and well-being. Furthermore, our study illustrates that there is a pronounced difference in the focus of SIs between developing and developed countries. Concerning the innovators, our results indicate that five types of innovators are fundamentally involved in developing and implementing SIs: social entrepreneurs, NGOs and non-profits, public institutions, civil society, firms, and social enterprises. Our definition analysis as well as the identification and classification of the innovators and addressed social needs bring much-needed clarity and structure to the field. However, our systematic review shows that SI is still in its infancy and it will be interesting to see where the field will head.

The purpose of this study is to develop a dual-functional university-enabled social innovation process model on the subject of low-cost houses that addresses the distinct elements of social obligation and university teaching-learning. Design/methodology/approach This study has predominantly adopted a longitudinal single case study approach, where data have been collected through interviews, survey, participant observation, direct observation and document review. The case study details on the social innovation processes, which was conducted by Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Findings This study has demonstrated the social innovation processes toward addressing the issue of insufficient low-cost houses, concurrently benefitting the teaching-learning dimension. Three sub-innovations have been highlighted in the developed social innovation process model, which are collaboration process, teaching-learning and design-construct innovation. Originality/value The development of the social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative is a novel establishment, particularly for developing nations, as limited studies have been conducted in this regard. The significant insights into how university could play a role in addressing major social issues, along with their core focus (teaching-learning and research development), is a breakthrough for further diffusions of social innovation by universities.

The purpose of this study is to develop a dual-functional university-enabled social innovation process model on the subject of low-cost houses that addresses the distinct elements of social obligation and university teaching-learning. Design/methodology/approach This study has predominantly adopted a longitudinal single case study approach, where data have been collected through interviews, survey, participant observation, direct observation and document review. The case study details on the social innovation processes, which was conducted by Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. Findings This study has demonstrated the social innovation processes toward addressing the issue of insufficient low-cost houses, concurrently benefitting the teaching-learning dimension. Three sub-innovations have been highlighted in the developed social innovation process model, which are collaboration process, teaching-learning and design-construct innovation. Originality/value The development of the social innovation process model for low-cost houses through university-enabled initiative is a novel establishment, particularly for developing nations, as limited studies have been conducted in this regard. The significant insights into how university could play a role in addressing major social issues, along with their core focus (teaching-learning and research development), is a breakthrough for further diffusions of social innovation by universities.

A social innovation ecosystem is a set of actors from different societal sectors and their environments with legal and cultural norms, supportive infrastructures and many other elements, which enable or inhibit the development of social innovations. In this context, several issues regarding information reuse and integration can be found. In this paper, we present an observational study where a real case of an emerging social innovation ecosystem was modeled and analyzed in order to identify the challenges faced by the actors. Results show the importance of adopting digital ecosystem concepts for an approach in which social innovation actors interact and collaborate through the support provided by a common technological platform, composing what we called as Social Innovation Digital Ecosystem (SIDE). Such approach aims to support social innovation actors towards fostering collaboration, co-creation, knowledge, and information sharing and reuse, enabling the development, dissemination and generation of more effective social innovations.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The innovation journey is a process model distinguishing between the initiation, developmental and implementation/termination period of innovations; it looks at drivers and barriers, like innovation managers, investors, setbacks, adaptation, infrastructure. We operationalize this model to apply it to the process of social innovation. Eighty-two cases are re-analysed in a secondary analysis using qualitative comparative analysis to assess how social innovations develop and to investigate if they resemble the ‘innovation journey’ of innovations in technology/business.

This article uses a conceptual approach to propose an innovation model for regional universities. It demonstrates that the traditional university encounters several obstacles that hinder its full integration into the development of its respective region and explains why currently known models cannot adapt to regions that have deficient relationships with the government and lack an entrepreneurial base. The new model is based on a structure composed of units called “innovation hubs” and incorporates social innovation, thus permitting the university to become integrated into the regional innovation ecosystems. The Magdalena University in Colombia was used as a reference in developing the model. Keywords: hub; social innovation; university innovation models; regional innovation ecosystems