Rechercher

This open access book summarizes research being pursued within the SISCODE (Society in Innovation and Science through CO-DEsign) project, funded by the EU under the H2020 programme, the goal of which is to set up an analytical, reflective and learning framework to explore the transformations in initiatives and policies emerging from the interaction between citizens and stakeholders. The book provides a critical analysis of the co-design processes activated in 10 co-creation labs addressing societal challenges across Europe. Each lab as a case study of real-life experimentation is described through its journey, starting from the purpose on the ground of the experimentation and the challenge addressed. Specific attention is then drawn on the role of policies and policy maker engagement. Finally, the experimentation is enquired in terms of its output, transformations triggered within the organization and the overall ecosystem, and its outcomes, opening the reasoning towards the lessons learnt and reflections that the entire co-creation journey brought.

Social Innovation Social innovation is about developing new ideas to tackle social problems or meet social needs. It may be a new product, service, initiative, organisational model or approach to the delivery of public services.

Social innovation refers to the design and implementation of new solutions that imply conceptual, process, product, or organisational change, which ultimately aim to improve the welfare and wellbeing of individuals and communities.

La social tech (abréviation de social technology, ou technologie sociale) représente l’ensemble des procédés, outils et technologies qui permettent d’améliorer la société et son environnement social.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) reshapes companies and how innovation management is organized. Consistent with rapid technological development and the replacement of human organization, AI may indeed compel management to rethink a company's entire innovation process. In response, we review and explore the implications for future innovation management. Using ideas from the Carnegie School and the behavioral theory of the firm, we review the implications for innovation management of AI technologies and machine learning-based AI systems. We outline a framework showing the extent to which AI can replace humans and explain what is important to consider in making the transformation to the digital organization of innovation. We conclude our study by exploring directions for future research.

With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and new technologies that promote networking spaces have emerged, citizen participation represents one of the principal instruments to make government open and close to the citizenry needs. Participation in urban governance has undergone a great development: from the first postmodernist ideals of countering expert dominance to today’s focus on learning and social innovation, where citizen participation is conceptualized as co-creation and co-production. Despite this development, there is a lack of research to know how this new governance context is taking place in the SC arena. Addressing this situation, in this article, we present an exhaustive survey of the research literature and a deep study of the experience in participative initiatives followed by SCs in Europe. Through an analysis of 149 SC initiatives from 76 European cities, we provide interesting insights about how participatory models have been introduced in the different areas and dimensions of the cities, how citizen engagement is promoted in SC initiatives, and whether the so-called creative SCs are those with a higher number of projects governed in a participatory way.

Résumé d'une 3e conférence de la Série sur les données de Philagora. Les invités sont : - David Chartrand de Novatic - Viet Cao, Synapse C

In an increasingly globalized world, the challenges of society need to be tackled not by single organisations but by a multitude of stakeholders. Universities can contribute by extending their role and by collaborating with external stakeholders. This study employs qualitative methods to explore how a university engages with its innovation ecosystem through two different projects.The findings, connected to the development of educational and digital systems,show: 1) evidence of two extreme approaches to external stakeholder engagement and 2) three levels of tensions (multi-layered tensions) - on an overarching level, between stakeholder groups, and within groups of stakeholders. The contribution connects to literature on open innovation, quadruple helixes and lastly to university social innovation, especially responsibility diffusion.

Pourquoi utiliser cet outil d’autodiagnostic ? Afin de vous aider à comprendre la manière de tirer le meilleur parti de vos données, Synapse C met à votre disposition un outil d’autodiagnostic en matière de données existantes et de leur utilisation dans le secteur des arts et de la culture. L’outil d’autodiagnostic permet à votre organisme d’évaluer sa capacité à utiliser les données et les outils numériques avec confiance et efficacité.

Qu'est-ce que l'innovation sociale? Comment l'économie sociale est-elle un vecteur d'innovation sociale? Sur le terrain, localement, comment met-on en application l'innovation sociale par l'économie sociale? Visionnez le webinaire pour le découvrir! 00:00 Introduction 02:00 Annie Camus 20:39 Martin Frappier 34:58 Marykim D'Amours Bryson 49:20 Questions et conclusion

This chapter considers the role of universities in stimulating social innovation, and in particular the issue that despite possessing substantive knowledge that might be useful for stimulating social innovation, universities to date have not been widely engaged in social innovation activities in the context of Quadruple Helix developmental models. We explain this in terms of the institutional logics of engaged universities, in which entrepreneurial logics have emerged in recent decades, that frame the desirable forms of university-society engagement in terms of the economic benefits they bring. We ask whether institutional logics could explain this resistance of universities to social innovation. Drawing on two case studies of universities sincerely committed to supporting social innovation, we chart the effects of institutional logics on university-supported social innovation. We observe that there is a “missing middle” between enthusiastic managers and engaged professors, in which four factors serve to undermine social innovation activities becoming strategically important to HEIs. We conclude by noting that this missing middle also serves to segment the operation of Quadruple Helix relationships, thereby undermining university contributions to societal development more generally.

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.

This study attempts to extend the definition of social innovation within the context of academic entrepreneurship. We consider how academic entrepreneurs can undertake commercial activities, and which ones, and how these activities contribute to the contexts of social innovation. We explore two cases that are derived from two premier universities in Taiwan in terms of research and academic entrepreneurship: OurCityLove from National Chiao Tung University (NCTU) and the Forest app from National Tsing Hua University (NTHU). The two cases show how social enterprises achieved the financial ability to expand their businesses and create the desired social values. While the first case, derived from NCTU, focused on providing useful information on social spaces, and services for the elderly, parents traveling with babies and those with disabilities (and also creating job opportunities for the latter), the other from NTHU created an app to influence those addicted to playing with their smartphones. The cases illustrate how the two universities capitalised on their technological competencies and academic programmes to support graduates and researchers in venturing into social entrepreneurship.

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.

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

Cette recherche traite du rôle des plateformes technologiques pour engager le client dans un processus de co-création de valeur avec l’entreprise. Le cas du Photomaton digital (Sharingbox) est étudié. Des entretiens semi-directifs menés auprès de clients participants à trois événements de marques mais aussi auprès de managers et de responsables de l’entreprise Sharingbox révèlent le rôle de cette technologie à engager les participants dans un acte de co-création en ligne avec la marque, acte qui peut se révéler engageant dans le temps. Cependant, l’efficacité de ces plateformes d’engagement semble contingente aux valeurs perçues de l’expérience de la technologie, à l’image de la marque et au profil de ses clients.

Afin de réfléchir à la relation dans le soin et son apprentissage, dix-sept personnes sont sollicitées pour participer à une journée de codesign. Cette méthodologie consiste, par une succession d’exercices protocolisés, à favoriser la créativité du groupe via une démarche d’intelligence collective. L’article vise à réfléchir aux conditions par lesquelles une telle méthodologie peut devenir une ressource capacitante pour penser l’apprentissage de l’éthique. Le présent travail souligne notamment la place centrale de l’affectivité dans la construction du climat d’innovation et dans le mécanisme de la pensée divergente. L’article ouvre in fine de nouveaux questionnements sur l’articulation des exercices, l’affectivité, le rôle de l’animateur ou encore celui de l’usager. Les perspectives de recherches invitent à un décloisonnement disciplinaire.

Overview This research space can be described as an opportunity to explore trust, balance, respect, and understanding in intercultural relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in Canada, with an overall aim of fostering new, responsible, reciprocal and respectful relationships in place of old conflicts .Preliminary research suggests that social innovations

Changing the system dynamics that created the problem in the first place "A social innovation is any initiative (product, process, program, project, or platform) that challenges and, over time, contributes to changing the defining routines, resource and authority flows or beliefs of the broader social system in which it is introduced. Successful social innovations have durability, scale and transformative impact. (Frances Westley 2014)