Rechercher

Social innovation has enjoyed growing recognition all over the world. But many of us are unsure of how it happens or why we need it. Here's a quick overview…

Public innovation has received increasing attention in recent years. Experiments with new governance structures, such as New Public Management and New Public Governance, have challenged the traditional top-down, internally driven forms of innovation in the public sector and have entailed a search for new forms of open, collaborative and interactive innovation, implying a reframing of public innovation activities. However, introducing these new frames of innovation causes uncertainties in the public sector, necessitating better understanding of how public innovation can be changed to address societal needs. This paper uses materials from case studies of 21 public living labs across Europe to analyse the lessons that can be learned from public sector participation in living labs in terms of their contribution to reframing public innovation. The “frame” construct is used to analyse and provide an understanding of how participation in living labs helps public actors to reframe innovation and address public and societal needs. Three living lab framings for changing public innovation are identified (processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement), and the degree of intensity of these framings with respect to involving stakeholders and addressing societal challenges is discussed. The paper contributes to knowledge of public sector innovation by extending previous accounts of how public innovation can be improved.

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

Nous proposons un regard réflexif sur deux expériences de recherche-projet menées dans le cadre de thèses de doctorat. Notre réflexion porte sur les apports et limites de cette démarche dans le cadre de projets ancrés dans les champs de la santé et du handicap, plus spécifiquement des troubles du sommeil et des troubles du spectre de l’autisme. La proposition repose sur la démonstration de l’intérêt de la conception participative propre à la recherche-projet dans ces domaines sensibles au sein desquels l’enjeu de l’inclusion des acteurs apparaît comme majeur.

Social innovation (SI) is a promising concept that has been developed and mobilized in academia, government policies, philanthropic programs, entrepreneurial projects. Scholars propose multiple conceptions and categorization of what is SI (trajectories, approaches, theoretical strands, paradigms, streams). Some recent work has also addressed the question of who is doing SI. In both cases, the what and the who remain the key characteristic of SI. Two approaches are confronted: one where SI is more presented as a concept that reproduces the neoliberal–capitalist societies; a second that conceives SI as a transformative and emancipatory pathway. With this article, I contribute to the possibilities to conceive SI as performative concept. My proposition is to analyze SI as a discourse with precise performative practices and apparatus. By doing so, it allows scholars and practitioners to better reflect and identify the effects, tensions and ambivalence and possibilities of SI. Moreover, it gives us few key aspects of what might constitute an emancipatory social innovation.

Innovation in the forest sector is a growing research interest and within this field, there is a growing attention for institutional, policy and societal dimensions and particular when it comes to the question of how to support innovativeness in the sector. This Special Issue therefore focuses on governance aspects, relating to and bridging business and political-institutional-societal levels. This includes social/societal factors, goals and implications that have recently been studied under the label of social innovation. Furthermore, the emergence of bioeconomy as a paradigm and policy goal has become a driver for a variety of innovation processes on company and institutional levels. Our article provides a tentative definition of "innovation governance" and attempts a state-of-art review of innovation governance research in the forest sector. For structuring the research field, we propose to distinguish between organizational/managerial, policy or innovation studies. For the forestry sector, specifically, we suggest to distinguish between studies focusing on (i) innovative governance of forest management and forest goods and services; on (ii) the governance of innovation processes as such, or (iii) on specific (transformational) approaches that may be derived from combined goals such as innovation governance for sustainability, regional development, or a bioeconomy. Studies in the forest sector are picking up new trends from innovation research that increasingly include the role of societal changes and various stakeholders such as civil society organizations and users. They also include public-private partnership models or participatory governance. We finally should not only look in how far research approaches from outside are applied in the sector but we believe that the sector could contribute much more to our general scientific knowledge on ways for a societal transformation to sustainability. • We sketch the state-of-knowledge in innovation governance in the forest sector. • We provide a definition and possible categorizations of innovation governance. • We discuss recent research avenues, including social innovation and bioeconomy. • We assess how this Special Issue contributes to our scientific knowledge. • We discuss state of art, research gaps and possible future research directions.

Le débat sur le rapport entre l’innovation sociale et les villes s’est élargi au cours des dernières décennies. Ce débat met en évidence l’intérêt suscité par les processus de coconstruction des savoirs dans les laboratoires vivants en innovation sociale (LVIS). Cet article a pour objectif de présenter une approche conceptuelle et analytique du traitement des LVIS, ainsi que de décrire et de mettre en perspective deux expériences de mise en oeuvre de LVIS dans les villes : l’Observatoire de l’innovation sociale de Florianópolis (OBISF) au Brésil et Territoires innovants en économie sociale et solidaire (TIESS) à Montréal au Canada. Bien qu’ils émergent dans des réalités et des contextes différents avec des méthodologies de mise en oeuvre spécifiques, qui sont présentées dans le texte, la discussion et l’analyse des deux cas apportent des pistes d’apprentissage sur les défis et les perspectives quant à la coconstruction des connaissances visant à renforcer les dynamiques d’innovation sociale à l’échelle d’une ville.

Purpose: By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process. Findings: PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change. Practical implications: As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society. Originality/value: This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

Background: Identifying social innovation in health initiatives, promoting quality of life through them, and transforming current health conditions demand the knowledge, comprehension and appropriation of the theoretical and methodological developments of this concept. Academic developments in social innovation have mainly occurred in and been documented for English-speaking countries, although...

L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser une nouvelle forme organisationnelle, le living lab (LL) et sa capacité à favoriser l’innovation territoriale en milieu rural ou péri-urbain. A travers une revue de littérature et la mobilisation de la sociologie de l’acteur-réseau (Callon, 1986 ; Latour, 1987), nous positionnons les living labs comme intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte dont les caractéristiques permettent d’intégrer de nombreux acteurs hétérogènes, établissements publics, entreprises privées, associations et citoyens, sur des projets d’innovation. L’étude d’un LL rural met en évidence la capacité d’une telle structure à reconfigurer des réseaux d’acteurs pour proposer une série de tiers-lieux adaptés aux spécificités des territoires sur lesquels ils s’implantent. Cette recherche permet d’enrichir la réflexion la pérennisation des tiers-lieux ruraux et leurs spécificités par rapport aux espaces urbains.

L’adjectif « agile » est désormais employé pour qualifier un idéal d’entreprises dynamiques et innovantes. De fait, deux interprétations de ce terme peuvent être envisagées. La première renvoie à la mise en place systématique d’une gestion de projet en mode agile, c’est-à-dire se conformant à certaines valeurs et principes formulés dans un manifeste. Celui-ci met notamment l’accent sur le développement en cycles courts, le travail en petite équipe, une conception en collaboration avec les clients et l’acceptation bienveillante des changements de besoins. La seconde se rapporte à une entreprise capable de répondre plus vite et mieux que ses concurrentes à des changements environnementaux. Dans ces deux cas, la créativité et la veille jouent un rôle important. Elles permettent à l’entreprise de rester agile en : identifiant les changements environnementaux, alertant sur ses propres routines, envisageant rapidement des réponses pertinentes pour ses clients et, autant que possible, surprenantes pour ses concurrents.

Face à la conception technocratique et entrepreneuriale portée par les pouvoirs publics, une approche alternative de l’innovation sociale, plus populaire et moins visible, à travers l’exploration d’initiatives citoyennes. Prenant comme point de départ le constat d’une appropriation institutionnelle de l’innovation sociale, orientée vers la compétitivité et l’efficacité marchande des expériences de l’économie sociale et solidaire, l’ouvrage vise à la fois à apporter un regard critique sur cette conception de l’innovation sociale et à remettre en lumière des expérimentations citoyennes peu prises en compte par les pouvoirs publics. Il montre ainsi la nécessité d’un tournant épistémologique valorisant les dynamiques de coproduction des savoirs et des politiques entre acteurs, chercheurs et institutions.

Waste generation, especially hazardous waste, can strongly affect the environment and human lives. There is an urgent need to implement sustainable hazardous waste management tools to reduce their harmful impact on the environment stemming from incorrect waste management. However, there is still a lack of business model concepts combining sustainable development and risk management in reverse logistic value chains for hazardous waste. Therefore, the authors develop a novel sustainable business model canvas for both an entity and the logistics system using the Osterwalder's Business Model Canvas integrated with the concept of sustainable development in economic, social and environmental areas (Triple Bottom Line, TBL) and risk-related elements. Then, using the developed sustainable business model canvas, the model for the logistics system for the treatment of hazardous waste containing asbestos was successfully created. The model was implemented in the prototype of computer software in the form of electronic network services.

Creative collaboration happens when a creative process is undertaken by two or more individuals, teams, entities, or organizations for a project or challenge of common concern. Typically, the project is too challenging to be undertaken alone; and if done satisfactorily, the outcome is would be both novel and useful. Members can collaborate either physically or remotely through electronic (online creative collaboration) or other means at all or different phases of the project.

La transformation numérique et l’innovation collaborative ou les notions associées « d’intelligence collective », de « design thinking », « d’agilité » sont en passe de devenir les principaux concepts à la mode du management dans les organisations privées et publiques, au moins au sein des sièges et des directions centrales. Partant d’une description des spécificités des bouleversements introduits par la transition numérique et des technologies capacitantes qu’elle promeut, nous montrons comment les opérateurs sont parfois en demande de plus d’innovations numériques pour améliorer leurs conditions de travail et les services rendus au public, pour autant que celles-ci ne soient pas substitutives et excessivement rationalisantes. Les démarches d’innovation collaborative, soutenues par le haut management de manière parfois paradoxale, contribuent à faciliter ces mutations.

Stanford is a quintessential entrepreneurial university, encouraging firm formation from existing knowledge that the university aggregates as well as new knowledge that it creates. Its founders implanted an academic institution, with scholarly and entrepreneurial ambitions, on a ranch where cattle still graze in the upper campus. In contrast to MIT's founding role in Boston, infusing new technology into an old industrial region's firms, Stanford assisted industrial development in an agricultural region and its industrial interlocutors raised the technical level of the university in mutually beneficial symbiosis (Lecuyer, 2007). The theory and practice of how to “make over” a university into an entrepreneurial actor has come to the forefront of academic and policy attention, internationally, with the European Union sponsoring development of the U-Multirank tool that includes the phenomenon (Van Vught and Ziegele, 2012) and a Brazilian post-graduate student project part of the ITHI Global Entrepreneurial University Metrics (GEUM) initiative that produced a dedicated entrepreneurial university metric (Nerves and Mancos, 2016). As an academic institution propelled to the forefront of global rankings (O'Malley, 2018), while helping create the world's leading high-tech region, Stanford University is in a radically different position from its late 19th century developing region origins. Should Stanford respond to dramatic shift in status and fortune by reverting to an Ivory Tower mode in response to critics who label it “Get Rich U.” (Auletta, 2012)? Or, should it double down on its entrepreneurial heritage and forge more extensive ties to Silicon Valley and other innovation hubs? In 2011, then Stanford President John Hennessy responded to former New York Mayor Bloomberg's request for proposal (RFP) for a university to establish an entrepreneurial campus. Intrigued by the prospect of engaging with the city's financial, art and media complexes, Stanford invested one million dollars in proposal development but eventually withdrew its bid in the face of faculty opposition to diversion of resources as well as Cornell University's munificent counter-offer in alliance with Israel's Technion (Hennessy, 2018). Instead, Hennessy inaugurated a program with an altruistic bent, funding international scholars who will, after pursuing advanced degrees at Stanford, “drive progress for humanity rather than for a select few.” Doubtless, these nascent social entrepreneurs will internalize Silicon Valley's optimistic ideology. Success, as well as entrepreneurial exuberance, creates blinders that suppress disconcerting events, at least temporarily. In the late 00's, generating 7–9 start-ups per annum, the highest rate of any university, Stanford ignored flaws in its technology transfer process that inhibited greater attainment. The research question generated may be stated as follows: how is a hidden innovation gap recognized and resolved? An attitude of, “if it's not broken don't fix it” had taken hold rather than the converse “If it's working well make it better.” Inventions that were too early-stage to be licensed and required translational research or a start-up, languished. The first author faced a dilemma in presenting such less than stellar results from a 2005 study of Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) to the Dean of Research, its sponsor: how could such an analysis be taken seriously in the face of overweening achievement? The Dean's response was that, “OTL is not on our radar, they make more money each year.” Nevertheless, neophyte academic entrepreneurs had independently come to a similar conclusion as ours and were impelled to act. Their initiatives are the subject matter of this article. Skeptical of Stanford's relevance to aspiring universities, Jacob et al. (2003) hold that, “The reality of building an entrepreneurial university… is an arduous task for which there is no blueprint.” Yet, a potentially replicable organizational design may be discerned by changing the focal point from Silicon Valley's efflorescence to Stanford's entrepreneurial dynamic. The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines a theoretical framework for the entrepreneurial university and reviews its literature. Section 3 presents a research design to investigate the “paradox of success,” its causes and cures. Section 4 presents a series of initiatives instituted to enhance the Stanford Innovation System. Section 5 formulates an organizational change thesis, linking design thinking to Institution Formation Sociology and social with technological innovation. Section 6 proposes policy measures to improve the Stanford Innovation System in particular and the entrepreneurial university model, in general. Finally, Section 6 sums up research insights, notes study limitations and outlines future research.

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.

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.

Responsible Innovation can be the corporate answer to tackle the grand societal challenges. However, companies still have not implemented the concept in their daily innovation practices. Furthermore, citizens, as the voice of societal needs and issues, only have been involved in corporate innovation processes (design thinking, co-creation) on a very limited scale. This raises the question on how to enable the participation of citizens in corporate innovation processes in an effective and efficient way. Therefore, certain quality criteria need to be defined and tested, which has not been researched before in such a context. The aim of this exploratory case study, thus, is to develop and test quality criteria of citizen participation and find out what quality companies can reach in 20 pilot-workshops all over Europe.

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.