Social innovation to solve homelessness : wicked solutions for wicked problems

Homelessness is a complex problem that manifests in all societies. This intractable and ‘wicked’ issue resists single-agency solutions and its resolution and requires a large, on-going investment of financial and professional resources that few organisations can sustain. This paper adopts a social innovation framework to examine government and community sector responses to homelessness. While recent evaluations and policy prescriptions have suggested better integrated and more co-ordinated service delivery models for addressing homelessness, there is little understanding of the innovation framework in which alternative service system paradigms emerge. A framework that identifies/distils and explains different innovation levels is put forward. The framework highlights that while government may lead strategic level innovations, community organisations are active in developing innovation at the service and client level. Moreover, community organisations may be unaware of the innovative capacity that resides in their creative responses to resolving social crisis and marginalisation through being without shelter.

Design led innovation as a means to sustain social innovation enterprises

This proposition challenges the notion that clean technology firms, who form part of the emerging social innovation enterprise sector, do not have the resources to gain value from Design Led innovation practices, due to their size and operational constraints. Much has been written on the benefits of linking design and design thinking to organisational strategy and business transformation. The term Design Led in the context of this proposition is defined as the tools and approaches which enable design thinking to be embedded as a cultural transformation within a business. Being Design Led requires a company to have a vision for top line growth within their business, which is based on deep customer insights and expanded through customer and stakeholder engagements, with the outcomes being mapped to all aspects of the business to enable the vision to be achieved.

Towards human and social innovation: not wanting to know in order to create

The formation of a venture relies, in part, upon the participants reaching a shared understanding of purpose and process. Yet in circumstances of great complexity and uncertainty how can such a shared understanding be created? If the response to complexity and uncertainty is to seek simplicity in order to find commonality then what is lost and what is at risk? Can shared understandings of purpose and process be arrived at by embracing complexity and uncertainty and if so how? These questions led us to explore the process of dialogue and communication of a team in its formative stages. Our interests were not centred upon the behavioural characteristics of the individuals in the 'forming' stage of group dynamics but rather the process of cognitive and linguistic turns, the wax and wan of ideas and, the formation of shared meaning. This process of cognitive and linguistic turns was focused thematically on the areas of foresight, innovation, entrepreneurship, and public policy. This cross disciplinary exploration sought to explore potential synergies between these domains, in particular in developing a conceptual basis for long term thinking that can inform wiser public policy.

Social innovation and social enterprise : evidence from Australia

‘Social innovation’ is a construct increasingly used to explain the practices, processes and actors through which sustained positive transformation occurs in the network society (Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford:Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship; Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4):34–43, 2008.). Social innovation has been defined as a “novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions, and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.” (Phills,J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (4):34–43, 2008: 34.) Emergent ideas of social innovation challenge some traditional understandings of the nature and role of the Third Sector, as well as shining a light on those enterprises within the social economy that configure resources in novel ways. In this context, social enterprises – which provide a social or community benefit and trade to fulfil their mission – have attracted considerable policy attention as one source of social innovation within a wider field of action (see Leadbeater, C. (2007). ‘Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next 10 years’, Cabinet office,Office of the third sector http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms xstandard/social_enterprise_innovation.pdf. Last accessed 19/5/2011.). And yet, while social enterprise seems to have gained some symbolic traction in society, there is to date relatively limited evidence of its real world impacts.(Dart, R. Not for Profit Management and Leadership, 14(4):411–424, 2004.) In other words, we do not know much about the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise. In this chapter, we consider the social innovation practices of social enterprise, drawing on Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship: 5) three dimensions of social innovation: new combinations or hybrids of existing elements; cutting across organisational, sectoral and disciplinary boundaries; and leaving behind compelling new relationships. Based on a detailed survey of 365 Australian social enterprises, we examine their self-reported business and mission-related innovations, the ways in which they configure and access resources and the practices through which they diffuse innovation in support of their mission. We then consider how these findings inform our understanding of the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise,and their implications for public policy development.

Empower me : social innovation design for homeless families : collective design creativity

Design Creativity has largely been explored as an individual expression of design cognition rather than as the collective manifestation of interaction in context. Recent approaches to design with an emphasis on co-design suggest that the problem-solution space co-evolves through social interaction. Socially Responsive Design for Social Innovation constitutes the most recent and perhaps the most promising domain of application for design thinking practices that emphasize collaborative innovation. In this paper, we describe the ideation of a service design solution for homeless families (Em.power.me), developed through consultation with a range of stakeholders over a three month period. This service design innovation aimed to visualise how such a service would operate and identify the potential benefits for all stakeholders. We focus here on the phases leading to the ideation of the service design.

Sustaining social innovation enterprises through a design led innovation framework

Constant changes in the global economic environment require companies to revisit traditional assumptions about how businesses create and capture value (Teece, 2010). In recent years, management practice literature has focused largely on better understanding business models and business model innovation (Amit, Zott and Massa, 2010; Johnson, Christensen and Kagermann, 2008). Much has been written on the benefits of linking design and design thinking to organisational strategies and business transformation. However, very little has been researched and reported on regarding the impact of design led approaches to triple bottom-line opportunities such as, social innovation enterprise. In the context of this paper Design Led Innovation is defined as the tools and approaches which enable design thinking to be embedded as an element of cultural transformation within a business. Being Design Led requires a company to have a vision for top line growth founded on deep customer insights and expanded through customer and stakeholder engagements. The outcomes of this are then mapped to all aspects of the business, enabling the vision to be successfully implemented and achieved. It is the latter part of this definition where we believe Design Led Innovation has the greatest value in transforming social innovation enterprise into a sustainable business venture. However, we also acknowledge that enabling these firms to think strategically about their business model is difficult given the unique operational and funding challenges that often characterize many social enterprises. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to pose the question, do sustainable innovation enterprise innovate their business model? And if so, how? It is the authors’ opinion that such enterprises only innovate at the product or system level without a complete understanding of the business model structure, which underpins the long term viability. However, in this paper we challenge this notion and explore if such firms can overcome their size and operational constraints to become sustainable enterprises using a design led approach. This is achieved through contextualizing business model innovation, briefly defining social innovation enterprise and profiling a new and emerging industry in Australia – Clean Technology. Future research challenges and opportunities are also presented.

Social innovation in local food in Japan: Choku-bai-jo markets and Teikei cooperative practices

The working paper depicts two innovative examples from Japan of the direct supply of food, which involves the development of closer producer-consumer relations, as well as closer producer-producer networks. Choku-bai-jo and Teikei networks are considered as examples of practices implicated in alternative food networks (AFNs). One example has become a quasi-public endeavour and is seen by the Japanese state as a legitimate part of rural development and is promoted in support of small producers. The other is borne from consumer concern over food quality and, despite its long-lived status, this arrangement remains marginal and with little institutional or governmental support. A model which blends the organization and aims of both examples holds potential for a more sustainable eco-economic future.

Social innovation and social entrepreneurship a systematic review

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature suggests CSR initiatives extend beyond meeting the immediate interests of stakeholders of for-profit enterprises, offering the potential to also enhance performance. Growing disillusionment of for-profit business models has drawn attention to social entrepreneurship and social innovation to ease social issues. Adopting a systematic review of relevant research, the article provides collective insights into research linking social innovation with social entrepreneurship, demonstrating growing interest in the area over the last decade. The past 5 years have seen a surge in attention with particular focus on the role of the entrepreneur, networks, systems, institutions, and cross-sectoral partnerships. Based on the findings of the review, the authors synthesize formerly dispersed fields of research into an analytical framework, signposting a “systems of innovation” approach for future studies of social innovation and social entrepreneurship.

Integrating open innovation in the social innovation process: an exploratory study

Inovação tem se tornado um fenômeno cada vez mais complexo e dinâmico, com a mudança de um paradigma focado na inovação industrial, onde a inovação acontecia no produto ou no processo de fabricação, para outro baseado no conhecimento, muito mais amplo. Além disso, o conhecimento e a competência técnica não são mais considerados como um monopólio do departamento de pesquisa e desenvolvimento. Isto trouxe mudanças nas práticas de inovação, que se tornaram mais abertas e levaram as empresas a interagir cada vez mais com o seu ambiente. Por outro lado, a inovação tecnológica, cujo primeiro objetivo é de criar valor para a empresa, tem experimentado alguns limites para resolver problemas sociais, como o aquecimento global. As novas tecnologias têm a capacidade de melhorar a qualidade de vida de muita gente, mas não é suficiente. É nesse contexto que surge outro tipo de inovação, cujo objetivo é de maximizar o impacto positivo na sociedade: a inovação social. Estes dois paradigmas de inovação, mais adequados aos desafios atuais, têm alguns pontos em comum na sua integração com o ambiente externo: a sociedade e outros atores da inovação. No entanto, praticamente não existem estudos integrando inovação aberta e inovação social. Este trabalho estuda a integração destes dois modelos a partir de uma pesquisa exploratória, realizando entrevistas em profundidade com 11 dirigentes de organizações sociais. As iniciativas sociais parecem atrair mais organizações externas para colaborar do que empresas com fins lucrativos, já que são mais altruístas. Parecem integrar essas pessoas e procurar por mais ajuda, especialmente no momento de escalar o negócio. Ainda que algumas organizações têm como prioridade institucionalizar a inovação aberta, outras veem isto como secundário ou simplesmente não sabem como fazer. Isto resulta em uma colaboração mais informal, que não é focada em atividades de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, prática ausente nas empresas da nossa amostra.

From social innovation to public policy. Success stories in Latin America and the Caribbean

Includes bibliography

What is social innovation? The paradigm shift and its relationship with Social Work

Innovation is a fundamental part of social work. In recent years there has been a shift in the innovation paradigm, making it easier to accept this relationship. National and supranational policies aimed at promoting innovation appear to be specifically guided by this idea. To be able to affirm this hypothesis, it is necessary to review the perception that social workers have of their duties. It is also useful to examine particular cases that show how such social innovation arises.

Community social innovation: a view of experiences of housing occupation from the Social Work perspective

This work aims to reflect on the concept of social innovation, questioning its explanatory capacity for the discipline of social work. For this purpose, certain on-going debates with regard to this concept are examined and certain minimum dimensions are offered to enable an analysis of the social innovation strategies that certain affected groups implement to meet social needs. The approach is to construct «glasses» that permit an analytical engagement with new realities and with the strategies used by certain social groups to resolve situations of severe vulnerability. Finally, a case study is presented: a strategic group known as the Corrala Utopía that seeks to respond to severe housing problems and is developing in the city of Seville. The article highlights the elements of community social innovation emerging from the experience studied.

Innovating at the margins: the System of Rice Intensification in India and transformative social innovation

I explore transformative social innovation in agriculture through a particular case of agroecological innovation, the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in India. Insights from social innovation theory that emphasize the roles of social movements and the reengagement of vulnerable populations in societal transformation can help reinstate the missing “social” dimension in current discourses on innovation in India. India has a rich and vibrant tradition of social innovation wherein vulnerable communities have engaged in collective experimentation. This is often missed in official or formal accounts. Social innovations such as SRI can help recreate these possibilities for change from outside the mainstream due to newer opportunities that networks present in the twenty-first century. I show how local and international networks led by Civil Society Organizations have reinterpreted and reconstructed game-changing macrotrends in agriculture. This has enabled the articulation and translation of an alternative paradigm for sustainable transitions within agriculture from outside formal research channels. These social innovations, however, encounter stiff opposition from established actors in agricultural research systems. Newer heterogeneous networks, as witnessed in SRI, provide opportunities for researchers within hierarchical research systems to explore, experiment, and create newer norms of engagement with Civil Society Organizations and farmers. I emphasize valuing and embedding diversity of practices and institutions at an early stage to enable systems to be more resilient and adaptable in sustainable transitions.

How game changers catalyzed, disrupted, and incentivized social innovation: three historical cases of nature conservation, assimilation, and women’s rights

We explore the impact of “game changers” on the dynamics of innovation over time in three problem domains, that of wilderness protection, women’s rights, and assimilation of indigenous children in Canada. Taking a specifically historical and cross-scale approach, we look at one social innovation in each problem domain. We explore the origins and history of the development of the National Parks in the USA, the legalization of contraception in the USA and Canada, and the residential school system in Canada. Based on a comparison of these cases, we identify three kinds of game changers, those that catalyze social innovation, which we define as “seminal,” those that disrupt the continuity of social innovation, which we label exogenous shocks, and those that provide opportunities for novel combinations and recombinations, which we label as endogamous game changers.