20160331 d1.1socraticsota final · 2016-06-15 · 3"...
TRANSCRIPT
1
q
2
About the Project
Project Title Social Creative Intelligence Platform for achieving Global Sustainability Goals
Project Acronym SOCRATIC Project No 688228 Call H2020-‐ICT-‐2015 CAPS Type of Action RIA-‐ Research and Innovation Action Thematic Priority Social Innovation, Citizen Empowerment, Gamification, Collective
Awareness Platform, Innovative Solutions, CAPS projects, Global Sustainability Challenges, Open Intelligent Collaborative Platform, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
Start Date of Project 01.01.2016 Duration of Project 24 Months Project Website www.socratic.eu Social Networks www.facebook.com/socractic2020 @socratic
About the Deliverable Work Package WP 1, SoTA Task D1.1 Deliverable lead SINTEF Authors (Org) Thomas Vilarinho, Jacqueline Floch, Manuel Oliveira (SINTEF)
Patrick Mikalef , Letizia Jaccheri (NTNU) Inès Dinant (Farapi) Philip Reimer (ATB) Yolanda Rueda, Alejandra Betegón, Angel Sola (CIB)
Reviewers (Org) Manuel Oliveira (SINTEF) Yolanda Rueda / Antonio Fumero (Cibervoluntarios),
Dissemination Level: PU Nature of the Deliverable
R
Due Date M3 – 31/03/2016 Submission Date Expected-‐30/03/2016 Date 30.03.2016 Version 5.0 Abstract The deliverable corresponds to a brief analysis of the State-‐Of-‐
3
The-‐Art (SOTA) towards building a common understanding of the concept and an overview of the existing platforms supporting social innovation.
Keywords Social innovation, co-‐creation, social entrepreneurship, collaborative awareness, social platforms
Versioning and contribution history
Version Date Author Notes 0.1 09.02.2016 Thomas Vilarinho Initial draft version 0.2 11.02.2016 Thomas Vilarinho, Jacqueline Floch Updated initial draft
version 0.3 18.02.2016 Thomas Vilarinho, Jacqueline Floch,
Patrick Mikalef, Inès Dinant, Letizia Jaccheri, Yolanda Rueda, Philip Reimer, Alejandra Betegón
Updates
0.4 14.03.2016 Manuel Oliveira, Antonio Fumero Addressing comments from reviewers.
0.5 30.03.2016 Manuel Oliveira, Yolanda Rueda, Antonio Fumero
Finalization of the document.
Disclaimer The information, documentation and figures in this deliverable are written by the SOCRATIC project consortium under EC grant agreement 688228 and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
Copyright notice © 2016 -‐ 2018 SOCRATIC Consortium Acknowledgment This report is funded under the EC H2020 CAPS project SOCRACTIC, grant
agreement 688228.
4
Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Workplan Positioning ........................................................................................ 8 1.2 Deliverable Structure ......................................................................................... 9
2 Social Innovation Terminology ............................................................................ 11
2.1 What is innovation? ......................................................................................... 11 2.2 What is social innovation? ............................................................................... 14 2.3 Social Innovation within the Pilot Organizations .............................................. 19 2.4 Processes of social innovation ......................................................................... 20 2.5 Socratic Social Innovation Dimensions ............................................................. 28
3 Collaborative Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS) 34
3.1 The CAPS Vision ............................................................................................... 34 3.2 First Funded CAPS Projects .............................................................................. 36 3.3 Other CAPS-‐related projects and initiatives ..................................................... 45 3.4 CAPS Platform Overview .................................................................................. 48 3.5 Analysis of CAPS platforms fostering the SI process ......................................... 51
4 Relevant knowledge generation and management platforms .............................. 62
4.1 Traditional Wiki Systems ................................................................................. 62 4.2 Semantic Wiki Systems .................................................................................... 64 4.3 Types of Usage ................................................................................................ 65 4.4 State of Market ............................................................................................... 65 4.5 Summary of the knowledge generation and management platforms ............... 73
5 Extreme Factories Platform ................................................................................. 74
5.1 Inception Services ............................................................................................ 75 5.2 Prioritisation Services ...................................................................................... 77 5.3 Implementation Services ................................................................................. 79 5.4 Follow-‐up Services ........................................................................................... 80 5.5 ExtremeFactories Ontology .............................................................................. 81
6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 85 7 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 87 8 Appendixes ......................................................................................................... 92
5
8.1 The Agile Innovation Manifesto ....................................................................... 92 8.2 Social innovation projects worldwide .............................................................. 93
List of Figures Figure 1 -‐ Interdependencies of task 1.1 with remainder tasks in WP1 and other
workpackages ....................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2 – Social innovation six phases (Murray, Caulier-‐Grive and Mulgan 2010) ..... 21 Figure 3 -‐ Agile ExtremeFactories Social Innovation Process ...................................... 25 Figure 4 -‐ Snapshot of Assembl ................................................................................. 53 Figure 5 -‐ Snapshat of Litemap .................................................................................. 55 Figure 6 -‐ Snapshot Debatehub ................................................................................. 56 Figure 7 -‐ Snapshot Objective8 .................................................................................. 57 Figure 8 -‐ Snapshot Scicafe2.0 ................................................................................... 58 Figure 9 -‐ Snapshot of Teem ...................................................................................... 59 Figure 10 -‐ List of campaigns (from Manager or Admin point of view) in
ExtremeFactories ................................................................................................ 76 Figure 11 -‐ Scoping a campaign to company staff ...................................................... 76 Figure 12 -‐ Prioritisation Admin Dashboard ............................................................... 77 Figure 13 -‐ Idea analytics ........................................................................................... 78 Figure 14 -‐ Prioritised Ideas Tab ................................................................................ 79 Figure 15 -‐ Implementation Dashboard ..................................................................... 79 Figure 16 -‐ Create New Project .................................................................................. 80 Figure 17 -‐ Create New Task in Project ...................................................................... 80 Figure 18 -‐ List of project with Follow-‐up state .......................................................... 80 Figure 19 -‐ List of KPIs for project .............................................................................. 81 Figure 20 -‐ ExtremeFactories Ontology – Excerpt ....................................................... 82
6
List of Tables Table 1-‐ Summary CAPS systems ............................................................................... 60 Table 2 -‐ Types of usage of different wiki system categories ...................................... 65 Table 3 -‐ Alfresco ECM Systems ................................................................................. 69 Table 4 -‐ Microsoft Sharepoint 2013 Editions (Grobmannschwarz, 2016), (Microsoft
Product Support, 2016) ....................................................................................... 71 Table 5 -‐ comparison shows how the CAPS features are addressed in Extreme
Factories ............................................................................................................. 74 Table 6-‐ Main entities in the ExtremeFactories ontology with their description ........ 82 Table 7 -‐ Overview of identified gaps and limitations of previous approaches ........... 86
7
Executive Summary This purpose of this deliverable “State-‐of-‐the-‐Art Update” is to build a common understanding of the social innovation concepts and the advances related to digital platforms that support social innovation. The deliverable will serve as common ground for the future activities that will conducted in the project. Since social innovation is understood differently over many perspectives, it is fundamental for the project to agree and align on the concepts to be used. It is also important for the project to identify existing digital methods and approaches that have been developed and can be reused.
The deliverable deepens into the state of the art research about Social Innovation, the CAPS (collaborative Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation) initiative and CAPS projects, tools supporting the Social Innovation Process, tools for Knowledge Management. In addition we present the Extreme Factories methodology and platform. Extreme Factories was an EU FP7 project Extreme Factories that has developed methods and tools in order to support the process of innovation in SMEs (Project Nr. 285164, Platform for boosting innovation within industrial environments was implemented and fully validated in seven European companies). The results of Extreme Factories will serve as a baseline in SOCRATIC. It will be further developed in order to support the main concepts of CAPS, i.e. collective awareness, sustainability and social innovation.
This deliverable does not make any decision about further direction of work in SOCRATIC. Next in our work is the development of two deliverables, one about the “SOCRATIC concept”, the other about requirements to the “SOCRATIC methodology and platform”. These deliverables will build upon the understanding gained through the State-‐of-‐the-‐Art and will decide upon the focus of our work and relevant reusable components.
8
1 Introduction This deliverable marks the starting point of the SOCRATIC work. Its purpose is to build a common understanding of the social innovation concepts and the advances related to digital platforms that support social innovation. It allows project participants to get insight in the variety of concepts related to social innovation and in the approaches and digital solutions that have been developed and can be reused. Thus the deliverable will serve as common ground for the future activities that will be conducted in the project.
The deliverable deepens into the state of the art research about Social Innovation, the CAPS (collaborative Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation) initiative and CAPS projects, tools supporting the Social Innovation Process, tools for Knowledge Management. In addition we present the Extreme Factories methodology and platform. Extreme Factories was an EU FP7 project Extreme Factories that has developed methods and tools in order to support the process of innovation in SMEs (Project Nr. 285164, Platform for boosting innovation within industrial environments was implemented and fully validated in seven European companies). The results of Extreme Factories will serve as a baseline in SOCRATIC. It will be further developed in order to support the main concepts of CAPS, i.e. collective awareness, sustainability and social innovation.
This deliverable does not make any decision about further direction of work in SOCRATIC. To make decisions, all project participants should first acquire a common mature understanding of digital social innovation. The two next deliverables that will be developed in the project (SOCRATIC concept and Requirements Analysis) are about making decisions.
1.1 Workplan Positioning This document is one of building blocks of the knowledge to define and develop the SOCRATIC methodology and platform. As such, the deliverable is interlinked with other tasks (and resulting deliverables) in workpackage 1, as evidenced in Figure 1.
9
Figure 1 -‐ Interdependencies of task 1.1 with remainder tasks in WP1 and other work packages
This deliverable builds the foundation for the project work and thus can be related to all technical deliverables that will be produced in SOCRATIC. The terminology and concepts explained here will be exploited when defining the SOCRATIC concept and the reviewed platforms and tools will be considered as reusable elements when extending the SOCRATIC platform. More specifically, this deliverable closely relate to the other deliverables that will be produced in WP1:
• D1.2 Pilot Scenarios Specification: The definition of the social innovation and CAPS concepts, and the presentation of social innovation processes are relevant in the investigation of the pilot scenarios.
• D1.3 Requirements Definition: Complementary to the specification of the pilot scenarios, the analysis of ICT-‐based approaches and tools for social innovation provides background knowledge for defining the requirements to the SOCRATIC Methodology and Platform.
• D1.4 SOCRATIC Concept: Complementary to the specification of the pilot scenarios, the analysis of social innovation concepts and the understanding social ecosystem provide background knowledge for defining the SOCRATIC Concept.
Ultimately, the work produced in WP1 will shape the results of WP2.
1.2 Deliverable Structure This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 3 reviews the concepts of innovation and social innovation used in the literature. It also reviews the life cycle of social innovation and defines the key characteristics/dimensions we are going to use for classifying the
10
different social innovation initiatives we’ve been reviewing throughout this analysis.
• Chapter 4, we summarize the main CAPS concepts, and present the CAPS-‐related projects and their results. We also seek to identify the reusable platform components developed by these projects.
• Chapter 5, we review the existing knowledge generation tools. Support for organising knowledge is an important feature of collective web platforms for social innovation.
• Chapter 6, we describe the ExtremeFactories software, which, as mentioned before, is the baseline of this project.
• Chapter 7 summarizes the results of this deliverable and identifies some limitations in the current approaches.
11
2 Social Innovation Terminology
2.1 What is innovation? Despite an increased focus on innovation in recent years, innovation, also often called entrepreneurship, has a long history. The concept of innovation has evolved though along the years. Kathryn A. Baker (2002) proposes a framework of organizational innovation that we exploit in the following to introduce some main attributes of innovation. As opportunities of innovation and open innovation are concerned, we also explore other sources. In addition, we refer to some previous EU funded projects. Kathryn A. Baker describes the evolution of the concept of innovation as follows:
“The early research on innovation tended to address the organization’s ability to respond and adapt to external and/or internal changes (Burns and Stalker 1961; Hull and Hage 1982). Subsequent work on innovation stressed more pro-‐active innovation and distinguished between types of innovation. Emphasis was on the organization’s ability to promote both process and product innovation, regardless
of an immediate need for change (Kanter 1988). The organization’s ability to promote process and product innovation has been argued to be no longer
sufficient and a third type of innovation has been introduced in the literature—called strategy innovation by some and business concept innovation by others. This type of innovation stresses the growing need for today’s organizations to proactively address challenges of the future by undertaking radical innovation
that will transform their environments and the marketplace (Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Hamel 1996). Organizations can no longer remain successful by merely adapting to external change and/or innovating in terms of products/services. “
The concept of innovation level has also evolved. Initially the focus was set on the extent of newness. Innovations could range from incremental to radical. However, radically new innovations do not always have a significant impact. Christensen (1997) advanced the concept of innovation by separating between newness and impact (or effect of an innovation). Christensen differentiates between sustaining versus discontinuous innovations. The effect of an innovation can range from: (1) contributing to fairly small improvements to products or to the way things are done, (2) causing a fundamental transformation in the resulting products or services and/or the process technology of an entire
12
industry, or (3) transforming the marketplace and/or the economy as a whole (Baker, 2002).
Looking at innovation, it is also interesting to look at the drivers of innovation. For instance (summarized from (Baker, 2002)):
• Increased competition with pressures to decrease costs, improve efficiency and shortness time-‐to-‐market;
• Changes in regulations;
• Demographic and social changes, and social expectations and pressures;
• New technologies and new applications of technologies.
However innovation is difficult. The presence of innovation drivers and/or the need to innovate will not necessarily result in innovation. Research has studied Enablers and Obstacles to Innovation, i.e. the factors that enable or hinder an organization’s capacity to innovate (Baker, 2002). The Innovative Capacity of an organization considers factors at different levels: Individual, Project, Organization and Environment. While initially studies relate to factors connected to organizations and their internal processes, focus is now set on the organization organization’s absorptive capacity, i.e. their ability to absorb, accumulate, and create the new knowledge necessary to generate new ideas (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Thus innovation requires an external perspective.
Besides the absorptive capacity, the ability to cooperate in different activities of the innovation process has also received increased attention. The concept of open innovation was promoted by Henry Chesbrough (Chesbrough, 2003). Open innovation includes exploiting external ideas and combining them with internal ideas, but exploiting internal and external paths to market, cooperating with other firms and sharing risks and rewards with them. Chesbrough motivates for open innovation with several arguments:
• the mobility of employees has increased meaning that knowledge also moves outside companies,
• the increased availability of venture capital makes it possible for good and promising ideas and technologies to be further developed outside the company,
• Various stakeholders, for instance customers or suppliers, play an increasingly important role in the innovation process.
13
Related to openness towards understanding and diffusing needs, the EU FP7 FET project FuturICT (The FuturICT Knowledge Accelerator: Creating Socially Interactive Information Technologies for a Sustainable Future -‐ 2011-‐2012 -‐ http://futurict.inn.ac) aimed at understanding and managing complex, global, socially interactive systems, with a focus on sustainability and resilience. FuturICT has built a Living Earth Platform that support decision-‐making of policy-‐makers, business people and citizens to better understand social, natural, technological and economic elements of the world. The platform includes 1) support for observation and analysis of data elements, 2) support for system modeling and simulation exploiting collected data, in order to get a better understanding of global systems, possibly to predict, but preferably not to control, and 3) support for exploration in order to make accessible the information to the public.
Hamel (2000) provides the following recommendations towards the development of an innovation competency:
1. Have a fluid notion of organizational boundaries and an open market for talent. It is not necessary to create all innovations internally.
2. Transform organizational strategy. (a) Innovation cannot be held to a scheduled strategic planning timeline; it should be on-‐going. (b) Innovative strategy does not necessarily come from the top. (c) Thinking about how big the thing could become and what the obstacles might be and how these can be addressed and constructing a convincing story is the most important part of strategy.
3. Create an open market for capital investment and rewards. Strategic thinking must not only be encouraged but also sponsored and rewarded.
4. Manage the risk. Most innovation ideas will not pan out, so don’t think big in terms of funding any one innovative idea. The strategy should be to fund a number of ideas.
5. Create a culture and a structure that promotes innovation.
Related to the topic of creating awareness towards innovation, the EU FP7 ARISTOTELE (Personalised Learning & Collaborative Working Environments Fostering Social Creativity and Innovations Inside the Organisations -‐ 2010-‐2013 -‐ http://www.aristotele-‐ip.eu) aimed at enhancing learning and innovation processes in organizations. The project developed models, methodologies and tools that support competencies and creativity by information and knowledge self-‐organizing, acquisition, processing and sharing.
14
“How much of innovation is inspiration, and how much is hard work?” asked Peter F. Drucker (Drucker, 2002). He argues that the most innovative ideas come from analysing seven areas of opportunities:
• Unexpected occurrences,
• Incongruities,
• Process needs,
• Industry and Market Changes,
• Demographic Changes,
• Changes in Perception
• New Knowledge.
We do not go through the detailed description of these, but highly recommend the reading of this article that provides examples for each of these opportunities. Beyond opportunities, the paper should also inspire in new ways of thinking. For instance, many companies disregard failures. Drucker advocates adding a description of potential opportunities to the traditional failure reports and encouraging managers to spend equal time describing opportunities and problems.
2.2 What is social innovation? If there is one thing that academics agree regarding Social Innovation (SI) is that there is no universally accepted definition of the term (Franz, Hochgerner, and Howaldt 2012). In order to agree upon the meaning of SI along the project, we have looked on how other researchers define the term, but also on how the pilot institutions (NTNU and Cibervoluntarios) use the term.
In order to find the baseline terms and concepts definitions we have searched for them on a general search engine and collected the scientific backed results. We opted for such approach instead of doing a search on a scientific database because we did not aim to make out of this exercise a deep systematic review. Still, our results yield scientific backing and social relevance.
We searched on Google (www.google.com) for the key words: “Social Innovation” and definition. In between the first 10 results, the top ones pointed to the definition used by the Stanford Social Innovation Review (http://ssir.org/) and Wikipedia’s definition. The other results included definitions used by SI
15
related websites, but also by SI reports or papers. We decide to look only into the definitions from the Scientific Articles and reports, which included:
• The definition adopted by the Stanford Social Innovation Review (Phills, Kriss and Miller, 2008)
• The definition drafted by the Young Foundation as part of the TEPSIE (The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe) project. Info at http://www.tepsie.eu/ (Caulier-‐Grice, Davies, Patrick, and Norman) TEPSIE was a research project (2012-‐2014) aiming at preparing the way for developing the tools, methods and policies which will be part of the EU strategy for social innovation. Its purpose is to strengthen the foundations for other researchers, policy-‐makers and practitioners to help develop the field of social innovation. The project studied the theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for developing the field of social innovation in Europe. It explores the barriers to innovation, as well as the structures and resources that are required to support social innovation at the European level.
• The definition used by Geoff Mulgan from the Oxford Business School (Mulgan 2006)
• The definition used by the European Commission on the EU’s Guide to Social Innovation (European Commission. Directorate-‐General for Regional Policy 2013)
• An article discussing the definition and theory of SI which goes through more than 40 definitions of SI or related concepts (Anderson, Curtis and Wittig 2015)
We read the above-‐mentioned documents and retained three different definitions to illustrate our starting point in drafting the definition to be used in the project. And together with that, to define the boundaries (or lack of them) of the usage of the term.
The first definition considered is the one that corresponds to the (European Commission. Directorate-‐General for Regional Policy 2013), which is also the basis of the definition used by in this project’s Description of Action (DoA) and of the Open Book of Social Innovation (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010). (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010) has been written by the Young Foundation and Geoff Mulgan, and, consequently, theirs view are also represented there. The definition is as follows:
16
“Social innovation can be defined as the development and implementation of new ideas (products, services and models) to meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. It represents new, which affect the process of social interactions. It is aimed at improving human well-‐being. Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. They are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance individuals’ capacity to act.”
It states that:
• it correspond to the “development and implementation of new ideas”, which could be in the format of products, services or models
• it is targeted to answer “pressing social demands”, to “improve human well-‐being”
• as a fruit of it new social relationships or collaborations are created, and “it enhance individuals’ capacity to act”.
• SIs are social both in “their ends and their means”
The second definition we use is the one adopted by the Stanford Social Innovation Review (Phills, Kriss and Miller, 2008), which was the first result on the Google search and which is cited by more than 550 works in accord to Google scholar. Their definition of Social Innovation is:
“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”
The definition describes that:
• it correspond to a novel solution that is better (in terms of efficacy, efficiency or sustainability) the existing solutions
• The values created by the innovation is given primarily to society rather than private individuals
For the last definition, we took the one from (Martinelli and Flavia 2012). It was one of the definitions discussed within (Anderson, Curtis and Wittig 2015), but which attempted to describe more in details the social contribution of SIs:
17
“Social innovation as opposed to other narrower notions of innovation, is characterized by the following features: It contributes to satisfy human needs that would otherwise be ignored; It contributes to empower individuals and groups; It contributes to change social relations”
Looking at many definitions, including the 3 above, we can clearly say that an SI is an innovation creating value primarily to society, making social impact. However, a few aspects such as the level and target of the impact seem to diverge or omitted in some of the definitions. In the next paragraphs, we will discuss those aspects and present how they will be considered in the project.
2.2.1 The level of impact (value created): Some definitions call social innovation those that trigger fundamental changes in society. Some say that it must attack the root cause of problems, instead of just treating “the symptoms” (Dees 1998), that it has to accrue in systemic change (Westley, Antadze, 2010), create or change social relationships and empower the target individuals (as per the 1st and 2nd example definitions). While other definitions do not specify which level of impact a SI must produce.
In the scope of this project, we will be working with SI initiatives being facilitated by Experts in Team and Cibervoluntarios through the Socratic Methodology and Platform for the duration of the project (2 years). The nature of the scenarios is such that the level of impact of theirs SIs will likely not be fully realized by the end of the project (for details about the scenarios see D1.2). Taking that into consideration together with the fact that the true potential of nascent SIs is often uncovered later in their process, we will not make any restrictions in terms of the level of expected impact of the SI projects to be catered in the platform. However, we will help them measure and analyze their potential impact.
2.2.2 Target group: Some definitions specifically marginalized groups as the target group to be aimed by SIs where others set society as a whole.
It was chosen that in SOCRATIC, we will not make any restriction on this regard. Both SIs that benefit marginalized groups or the whole society would be considered as long as the value created is of primarily benefit to society rather
18
than just the individuals carrying the SI. Rather, we will aim to foster SIs contributing specifically to the UN Sustainability goals related to Education, Employment and Health (for more details on the goals, see the DoA).
2.2.3 Society involvement and contribution on the development of the innovative solution:
Some definitions describe that society must be involved in the development of the innovative solution (innovations which are social in their means), while others do not make any requirements on this.
Some definitions, such as the first example definition, describe that people (end-‐users, problem owners or people that are not involved in the decision making as today) should be involved in the innovation process, but do not precise how much they should be involved. Which phases of the social innovation process should they be involved and how much should they be involved?
As this project is done on the context of Collaborative Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS) and we agree on the benefits of using User Centered Design (UCD), we set in the scope that the citizen to whom the effects of the social innovation are aimed for should be involved in the process. This means that he should be consulted, directly or indirectly (such as through an organization that represents him), along the SI process. He could be included in the requirement gathering; testing of the prototype or to have the innovation based on ideas/challenges they posted. He could also be the one driving the project and implementing the innovation (playing the role of innovator and beneficiary).
2.2.4 Social Impact as an aim or just as an effect: Some definitions outline that the social impact, solving a social problem, must be the main goal of the SI. They reject initiatives where the main goal is private profit, but whose services/products benefits society. A further inquire around this topic is whether social innovation must come from non-‐profits or not.
In the project, we will consider that SIs must have the social impact as their aim, but we will not make any discrimination on whether they are for-‐profit or non-‐profit companies.
19
2.3 Social Innovation within the Pilot Organizations As a continuation of the understanding of how Social Innovation will be used in the Socratic project, the use this concept was investigated in both pilot institutions.
In the case of Cibervoluntarios Foundation, many characteristics of the previous definitions are shared. For the Foundation, Social Innovation is the process based on which a product or service is developed to respond to a need detected socially and that can be used in another context, geographically space, after adapting it to the specific needs of this new context. In this sense, when considering the Social Innovation, the clue lies in the process, the methodology.
The established process and methodology are the elements that make it scalable and that give it its relevance as an innovation process. This understanding of the Social Innovation is very close to the first one presented earlier in this section in reference with the Open Book of Social Innovation (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010) and the focus they place on “development and implementation to meet social needs” which refers to the applied process. This definition, also, outline the importance to create new relationships or collaborations and the capacity of SI “to enhance the individual’s capacity to act”; both elements are also very important in the conception of the Foundation.
On one hand, the cyber-‐volunteers are expected to look after associations (of women, elderly people...), institutions (e.g. working with people with functional diversity), schools, to collaborate and create a space to carry out a training, course, or any activity held by the Foundation and so involve all the actors in the process. On the other hand, based on the established process of the Foundation, the objective is to get the volunteers feeling they are social innovation agents in their environment, and they are considered as the most important actors to detect the social needs around them. In this sense, they receive the adequate support to be able to act. In addition, these elements also make the social part of the process stronger and join the definition presented by Martinelli and Flavia (2012) when those affirm that SI “contribute to satisfy needs that otherwise would be ignored.” When the Foundation encourage the volunteers to look after actors and spaces to collaborate with, one of the objectives is to get in touch with those that could not have the resources (access to technology, internet, etc.) to get to this kind of activities or which needs in the technological sense are not considered as important or imperative. In this sense, the volunteers detect the social need(s) of a particular group in their environment, they identify how the
20
technologies could help to solve them and they establish a little process to respond to this social need.
In summary, this established process, build by the people, through the people, for the people to solve a social need and that could be re-‐use -‐even if adapted-‐ to a similar process is what characterized the Social Innovation carried out in CiberVoluntarios. What’s important to outline is linked to the fact that the people creating these processes may not necessarily be aware they are doing so in the sense of SI; they could be doing social innovation without knowing they are doing so. This is a common point to NTNU and the Experts in Teams program.
In the case of this second pilot institution of the project, until this year, they had not made specific reference to Social Innovation to the students or internally when establishing the challenges they had to solve in team. This does not mean that the projects did not carry out social innovations. Though the process as presented and carried by the student was not based on the SI process (to be discussed in the next section)-‐
This year, in the context of the Socratic project, the SI concept and process was explained to the students based on the definitions previously exposed. The emphasis has been put on taking into account the social component in the goals and in the means of the innovation process and the importance that the solution has to be more oriented to the society as a whole than to individual benefits.
In this sense, we can observe how, in CiberVoluntarios the way of understanding and carrying out the SI process is totally aligned to the baseline in terms and concepts that will be followed in the Socratic platform. In the case of NTNU and the EiT program in particular, the understanding of this concept will be laid out on this baseline, which will permit a common understanding from the beginning on between all the involved actors.
2.4 Processes of social innovation Similarly to the work we did for defining the SI term, we looked up in Google and Google Scholar for the terms “Social innovation” and Process and analysed the first hits, in special scientific articles and reports. Among those, we basically found 2 processes described by Geoff Mulgan: one from his 2006 paper (Mulgan 2006) and a newer one as part of the Open Book of Social Innovation (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010).
21
We will go here through the different steps of the later one (illustrated in the picture below), and then bring the Innovation process described by the Extreme Factories project, as their methodology and platform are the baseline to be used in this project (for more details about Extreme Factories, see section 3.3.2 The Stages of SI process as per Extreme Factories).
2.4.1 Six Phases of Social Innovation
Figure 2 – Social innovation six phases (Murray, Caulier-‐Grive and Mulgan 2010)
2.4.1.1 Prompts This step occurs before the SI process itself. In short it corresponds to identify and understand the social need(s) to be met by the social innovation. This identification serve as the base for the formalization of challenges to be addressed.
(Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010) describes many techniques to understand and recognize problems. It ranges from research techniques (ethnography, action research, literature surveys, field research), techniques to involve the user to describe his own problems (such as web-‐based feedback systems) and techniques to place you in different perspectives. All those techniques have an investigative aspect in common, as the challenges and needs may not be obvious; or, often, the symptoms may be apparent, but not their root cause. They also map into the SI characteristic of involving the beneficiaries of the SI into the process.
An example of high-‐level prompt of challenge for SI is the United Nations (UN) Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) [https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld]. The 17 SDGs and theirs 169 targets aim to realize human rights, equality and empowerment to all citizens and extinguish social exclusion or imbalance of rights of societal groups. They relate to economic development and the sustainable usage of resources in the planet, as those aspects are directly linked with our well-‐being and the well-‐being of our future generations.
This step could also be covered by monitoring the highly active social media channels and news feeds. The observation material could be recollected and
22
ordered as to be used as inspiration for entities interested to work on social innovation and searching for new challenges.
2.4.1.2 Ideation This stage is covered by many SI support process (as it is going to be discussed in the CAPS chapter of this document). It is the stage which would come after a societal problem has been observed, but a solution has not yet been found. It corresponds to more precisely identifying challenges based in the diagnose of the context of actions, choosing a challenge and generating and shaping an idea that can solve it.
Once a societal challenge is selected, it is important that the innovators have a look on the possible existing solutions that already (partly) respond to it. These solutions (product, service, …) can serve as basis for their idea in case they can see room for improvement on them. Other techniques to come up with the idea include the brainstorming and idea generation. The generation of ideas could be done by asking users directly and analysing theirs answers or through innovation games such as the ones described in (Hohmann 2006) and (Hohmann 2006; Gray, Brown, and Macanufo 2010) or looking at how similar problems have been solved. The contribution of users and different stakeholders in this stage and in the maturing of the innovation is crucial to ensure that the innovation really address their needs and produces impact.
The decision/prioritization of ideas can be supported by the usage of decision tables and evaluating techniques common from business analysis such as: SWOT analysis, Business Model Canvas, etc. Or it can also be done by asking the users. However, if an idea can be easily tested in the field, one can consider going directly to the prototyping and testing phases before a deeper market analysis. There is a grey area between the proof-‐of-‐concept prototyping and the maturing of a ideas as both go in the same direction of analysing and tailoring an on-‐construction innovation
2.4.1.3 Prototyping This stage is common to all SI methodologies, and in all of them it is described that the prototyping should be done fast and developed through multiple iterations, similarly to the Lean philosophy. The rationale is that an innovation will rarely be fully formed from its first idea and that it needs to be validated and tested early, so that it is mature when it reaches the market.
23
The tools for prototyping and testing the idea materialization depend on the realm of the SI project. For the case of IT based innovation products, it is possible to tap into paper prototypes, hardware prototypes and mock-‐ups for reproducing many aspects to be tested in the product before doing much software development, similarly to models used by architects and others responsible for building physical objects or structures. Other domains such as public policy may prototype by introducing first small scope and limited versions of the Innovation they aim to apply and testing it in a controlled or limited environment.
The level of testing and piloting of the product depends on the nature of the prototype, the level of validation desired and the availability of tester. It can be developed through the execution of proof-‐of-‐concept testing, controlled trials and pilots.
In this phase, the innovators may need access to some level of financing in order to pay the materials or work related to the creation of the prototype and testing. At the same time, the ones involved the execution of the work need to collaborate and catalyse their work, so that project management and coordination tools can provide useful support for the innovators.
At this moment, it’s interesting to go back to the target group that inspired the challenge in the first place, to contrast with them the effectiveness of the solution found.
2.4.1.4 Sustaining This stage corresponds to bring the innovation to the market and being adopted by the end-‐users. It may require much iteration to get it right and it also requires the innovators to organize themselves appropriately.
This stage corresponds to the moment where the innovators may need to organize the structure behind the innovation implementation, maintenance and development. It is when they will create a company or organization, or be embraced by some other organization. Such structure will serve as the interface for the innovative solution, but also the foundation supporting it to grow.
This stage maps to the time where there is a need of finding funding capital, an elaborated business model, staffing and planning operational systems. Here, many of the tools that apply to entrepreneurs and to the formation of start-‐ups may be useful.
24
Lean startup methodologies and tools have become quite popular, offering a consistent model that fairly maps against our SI process. We can find, for instance, a variety of crowdfunding, and lending platforms -‐e.g. Kickstarter or Indiegogo-‐, for funding our early stage innovations; or even testing and business modelling cloud-‐based collaborative tools for tuning our business model, e.g. Lean Canvas.
2.4.1.5 Scaling Scaling is the stage which allows the innovation to spread, to reach new markets, regions or levels of implementation. It may be done through the expansion of the organization behind the innovation or through licensing and other mechanisms to allow other organizations to explore it as well. It deals with increasing the supply and finding the demand for the innovation artifact.
This stage includes market research and understanding in order to capture the potential of reaching other markets. It involves the study of the wider scale of users in relation to the existing base and the adaptation of the innovation for catering them.
2.4.1.6 Systematic Change The Systemic Change maps to a long-‐term effect of change in the public or private sector triggering a change of social relationships and powers.
2.4.2 Extreme Factories Stages of Social Innovation ExtremeFactories was a project about enhancing the innovation management process in globally acting networked SMEs. It implements a new methodology, based on Agile Methodologies and a collaborative internet-‐based platform for adoption of a systematic innovation process. Targeted innovation process support aimed to cover all the phases of the process from its inception over ideas prioritisation phase and implementation phase till the follow-‐up of the implemented innovations, following an agile approach.
25
Figure 3 -‐ Agile ExtremeFactories Social Innovation Process
The stages are outlined below:
1. Preparation: This stage sets the culture and prepares the company for embracing the Innovation Process. It includes the creation of a clear Innovation Strategy. In the scope of a collective open platform, with a more decentralized set-‐up, such process would rather map towards communicating to users the characteristics of social innovation and its process.
2. Inception: In this stage of the Innovation Process, the actors involved in it generate ideas to solve a problem, create a new product/service, improve a process, etc. This maps to the Ideation process of (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010).
3. Prioritization: Once the ideas are generated the actors involved in the process will select the most promising ones to be implemented. Differently from (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010), in Extreme Factories, the prioritization is defined as a different process then the Ideation.
4. Implementation: This stage matches the prototyping stage from (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010). Here, the candidate ideas become projects with specific tasks and people to handle them. Implementation
26
may imply several activities: from design and manufacturing to the marketing of a product.
5. Follow-‐Up: The final stage of Extreme Factories’ Agile Innovation Process consists of evaluating the degree of success of the implemented ideas in order to learn from past errors or replicate previous success stories. It goes in the direction of sustaining and scaling the implementation, but in a smaller scope as Extreme Factories is aimed for in-‐house innovations at SMEs.
In line with what is also described in (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010), Extreme Factories highlights that present day customers demand responsiveness from products and services leading to a cyclic approach. This renders traditional top-‐down product and service development methods obsolete. Therefore, the steps above are part of their Agile Innovation Process, based on an agile philosophy, which is intrinsically responsive by being open to change.
The Agile Innovation Process encompasses an iterative approach, collective ownership, group work, and individual empowerment. The process is also simple and lightweight in nature to allow teams to move rapidly to a finalized product design through a series of “create-‐test-‐feedback-‐and-‐revise” iterations.
All the practices proposed are aligned with The Agile Manifesto1. This manifesto contains a set of 12 principles that describe what it means to be Agile, supporting project teams in the implementation of projects in an agile manner. ExtremeFactories proposes an Agile Innovation Process and, as such, it draws from the principles of The Agile Manifesto as described in 9.1 The Agile Innovation Manifesto.
2.4.3 Recruitment of users As we previously defined, the users, the ones to whom the effects of the SI are targeted to, need to be involved in the SI process. Therefore, an important consideration for the success of a SI is the recruitment of those users. Although the recruitment of users do not map exclusively to a stage of the SI, it is more like an orthogonal task along the process; it is important to discuss it due to the key role it plays in a social platform.
1http://www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
27
The users can play a central active role in the SI by being the ones driving and executing the SI, in other words, being the innovators. Or, they can also play a less central, but equally important, role of contributors, by providing input along the different parts of the social innovation process. Such input could go from describing theirs challenges to be addressed (prompt stage), being involved in the ideation of the solution to address that challenge or in the deployment of the innovation. It’s important to notice that when we talk about users we are not contemplating just individuals but organizations, institutions, associations and collectives.
The participation of the citizens in the social innovation process is twofold: it can be in a proactive fashion or a more passive one. The first mode requires a proactive profile of the citizens. People that are motivated to propose challenges corresponding to the problems they experience in their environment and to engage on the projects triggered by those challenges. Reaching out this profile of user to participate or start a SI boils down to capturing his attention and having a good communication channel. In that sense, it is important to establish good networks. For this inclusion to be as effective as possible and ensure that everybody is working with the same philosophy towards the same goals, the materials delivered in the preparation are very important. The communication is clear so that all SI participants share the same understanding of the social innovation process and of the specific social challenge to be tackled.
The second operating mode considers passive actors, collectives, organization and associations that would be consulted by the pro-‐active innovators. This group of people would be involved in the process as the innovators tries to understand their context, real needs, test scenarios, solutions, etc. This approximation to the reality of the context can be facilitated through online materials to guide the collection of information (see 4.3) This same group of population should be the one testing the prototype that came out of the social innovation process since they are the one that inspired it and, usually the solution as to respond to the particular needs of a situation they are living (see 4.5 and 4.6). These would be the ones called end-‐users in the CAPS document.
The different nature of profiling and involvement in the SI process requires that the platform should be adapted to accommodate both types of users.
28
2.5 Socratic Social Innovation Dimensions As mentioned, the term “social innovation” is not new albeit the corresponding paradigm of “social innovation” is slowly taking form as more is understood to form a foundational theory (Nicholls, 2010). Consequently, the term remains a quasi-‐concept (ref) that is extremely malleable having been appropriated by organizations, governments and researchers to describe particular forms of innovation within social contexts. In SOCRATIC, we have adopted a common definition, but further detail is necessary to classify and characterise social innovation. Our focus is on the proclivity to achieve scale beyond the local intervention of a single innovator meeting their needs. Towards this aim, we have built upon the work of the MyNeighbourhood project (S. Petersen, G. Concilio and M. Oliveira, 2016) and tailored to the particular temporal social-‐technical context of the SOCRATIC project.
The MyNeighbourhood project focused on the human capital within a neighbourhood, facilitating social innovation bottom-‐up through the use of technology. The driving vision of the project was how to engage with all the stakeholders of the ecosystem to recreate the social mechanisms which, in the past, ensured that urban neighbourhoods coincided with a social system of connected and trusted communities, where people felt safe and happy with a true sense of belonging. The project had four pilots across Europe, each with its own thematic challenges, which in some cases resulted in sustainable change in the form of services that continue to this day: a volunteer service to visit and arrange outings for handicapped citizens (in Aalborg), Women on Wheels to encourage migrant women to cycle (in Birmingham), supporting entrepreneurs to create local students in a catering school (in Milan). The project (G. Concilio, 2013) developed a scaling-‐up model based:
• Dynamics. The Dynamics determine the very nature of how the scaling up takes place, whether it is Amplification or through Diffusion. The former case reflects the case where one strengthens the impact of the social innovation, but it propagates from an area of intervention outwards, whilst in the latter case reflects a case of pollination across a city, that is more wide-‐spread and scattered.
• Strategies. There are several strategies that can be adopted to achieve scale, with a distinguishing factor being the entity responsible for applying the strategy, whether the original owner or third party. The Transfer implies a vector from one place to another, as in the case of Car2Go, which is a
29
company that provide car-‐sharing services across Europe having started in Ulma and expanded to other cities using the same platform. The Engagement strategy entails building upon the one of the basic human needs of belonging (ref Maslow pyramid of needs), where people commit to a group to fulfil a need as in the case of Food Coop, which is a food store managed by its members and labour hours is used as a currency.
The Networking strategy is a predominant strategy in the start-‐up community as evidence in the co-‐work spaces, where resources are shared amongst stakeholders and exchange of value is fostered. The Communication strategy focuses on the sharing of knowledge and information to stimulate behaviour transformation or uptake of good practice, as in the case of Amplify or Re:Work. The Adoption strategy is similar to Transfer, but without a vector, so a practice is adopted and adapted to a new context in a different social-‐spatial context, as in the case of Walk [Your City] by City Fabric.
A slight different strategy is Imitation where the object of innovation already exists, but can be improved by observing and imitating best practice from other sources. Two more inter-‐related strategies regarding the availability of financial support are Financing and Incubation. The former consists of sharing financial resources to third parties for a particular purpose (very much the accelerator and crowd-‐funding models in start-‐up community) and the latter focuses on scale. An example for both strategies is captured in Code for America, which focuses on developing ICT to facilitate social innovation to address government service shortcomings.
• Constellations. The model adopted a taxonomy based on astronomy to indicate the how different social innovations influence one another. As such, one may consider Solar System, where the innovation is the gravitational centre around which all the stakeholders revolve and there is little interaction outside the ecosystem; Binary Star is the case where two Solar Systems interplay with one another, where there is alignment of the services provided, with one being the primary and the other secondary (an example is the integrated transportation system in Amsterdam); Constellation is when the alignment takes place with multiple Solar Systems rather than just two; finally Galaxy is the case where one has constellations of constellations, but there has been no reported findings of such a case in literature as of yet. The weakest part of the scalability MyNeighbourhood scalability model is the interplay between the different social innovations.
30
With the above in mind, and the previous sections on social innovation, a set of twelve interrelated characteristics was devised to classify social innovation, which are organized into four categories: Nature, Innovation, Scale and Learning.
2.5.1 Nature When considering the nature of social innovation one has:
• Type. In most definitions of social innovation, the focus or object of the innovation is either a product or a service, in some cases a process. However, one should not neglect the wider application of social innovation, such as in the case of improving or creating a novel practice or regulation, as in the case of New Public Management (NPM) movement (Van de Walle and Hammerschmid, 2011) towards Public Value Management (Stoker, 2006 and Hartley 2005) where process innovation went into practice and regulation. The nature of the social innovation does not pre-‐determine the type of stakeholders involved, but certainly influences some of the other characteristics.
• Stakeholders. The stakeholders can be aggregated into four distinct categories, based on the legal representation. The private sector corresponds to commercial companies that are driven by profit, albeit being engaged in social actions and interventions within society. The public sector corresponds mainly to the governmental organizations that address the needs of the society.
The non-‐profit address the organizations that are not public, but are driven by non-‐profit mission and aims, as in the case of non-‐government organizations (NGOs). A triangle can be identified concerning the role and responsibilities of profit, non-‐profit and private organizations. However, within the scope of social innovation, one needs to account for the individual citizen, neighbours, students and activists, whom are informal organizations.
• ICT Infrastructure Role. When assessing the role of ICT in existing social innovation processes that led to products, services, processes, practice and regulation, one effectively realises that the impact of technology is limited. As a result, one can consider the following categories:
o Inessential. All relevant scaling processes natively take place out of the IT platform that is relevant to consider
31
o Enabling. Some processes are activated on the IT platform, some aren’t – and the users seamlessly jump out of and into the available infrastructure to make progress in their activities
o Empowering. The IT platform sets the rules of the game, allows users to ignite and perform processes that could not be otherwise carried forward and that are fully residing on the available infrastructure (in all their components)
2.5.2 Innovation • Ownership. The innovation process, in particular when considering the
inception and how it is triggered, can be considered to have either a top-‐down or a bottom-‐up ownership. In the former case, the process is owned by the service provider, organization leader or community manager (e.g. mayor), whilst in the latter case, the process is initiated by the service beneficiaries, organisational actors, or community members (e.g. Constituents). A hybrid ownership model is feasible, involving both top-‐down and bottom-‐up, leveraging co-‐design and co-‐production principles and practices.
• Purpose. When assessing the richness of the social innovation projects, one may categorise them according to three purposes: entrepreneurial (although the purpose is to address a social need, the purpose remains to make a profit – social entrepreneurship), society (quality of life, solidarity and well-‐being) and government (in this case, the social innovation is in response to an unmet social need that is subsequently taken up by the government).
• Maturity. There are many models of maturity concerning innovation, encompassing the inception project/prototypes, sustainable change, scaling and systematic change.
• Type. When considering the type of innovation, it is important to assess the potential impact: incremental (marginally affects the status quo), radical (changes/subverts the status quo in the direction of efficiency, productivity or frugality) or disruptive (in this case, the status quo is completely transformed across multiple dimensions, leading to paradigm shifts).
• Engine Type. The innovation process requires an engine that drives the process, which may be one of three types:
32
§ Single/close. This is the case when the innovation is carried forward by the original innovator, irrespective if it is a person, legal entity, or organisation.
§ Open. When the innovation is carried forward by the contribution of other entities than the original innovator
§ Connected. When there is a plan, or programme, to carry it forward which involves both the original innovator and other entities in a synergetic group of actions
2.5.3 Scale As evidenced by the maturity of an innovation, once change is achieved, the next phase is to consider how to scale. Similar to maturity, there are multiple models, but the most relevant to consider are the following two characteristics:
• Ambition. The level of ambition actually may evolve over time, but one can consider the ambition is neutral when at the inception of the social process, there is little concern over the potential scale of the results. However, this is not always the case as when one considers the geographic and cultural implications of the results, thus demonstrating awareness of ambition to scale.
Although rare, it is possible to encounter social innovation initiatives that were proactive from the inception, thus purposeful mechanisms were adopted with the intent to scale. In any case, even with the inception of a social innovation that is neutrally aware, with time and depending on the ownership and drive, one would expect that the ambition evolves to become proactive.
• Focus of Scale. To achieve scale, one considers increasing the scope of the innovation, the number of actors involved (including both beneficiaries and suppliers) and the entire community.
2.5.4 Learning Learning is inherent to innovation as one progresses from one idea to the next, evaluating the results, testing and experimenting, towards the realization and subsequently to scaling up. The learning takes place according to the feedback cycle:
33
§ Single-‐loop: The question to ask is whether one is doing things right and the reasoning will improve the immediate performed actions to achieve better results.
§ Double-‐loop: In this case, the question to ask is whether one is doing the right thing, thus the results lead to revisions on behavioural assumptions and guidelines
§ Triple-‐loop: Finally, in this case, the question is to decide what is right to focus on, thus affecting the operational context.
34
3 Collaborative Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS)
SOCRATIC is a research project funded under the Collaborative Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS) (Sestini, F. 2012) program of Horizon 2020. The initiative was first started under the EU FP7 ICT Work Program. In this section we first recall the main purpose and motivation for the initiative and present an analysis of the concepts. Then we present various CAPS projects funded under the CAPS initiative as well as other initiatives. We discuss their results with the aim to capture lessons learned that might be further exploited in SOCRATIC. We also describe test results aiming at analysing and comparing the CAPS platforms. In particular, we focus on those that have the closest synergies with Extreme Factories. Extreme Factories that will be presented in Section 6 is the methodology and platform baseline that will be further developed in SOCRATIC. This baseline is the result of the EU FPS project Extreme Factories (Project Nr. 285164, Platform for boosting innovation within industrial environments was implemented and fully validated in seven European companies).
3.1 The CAPS Vision The initiative “Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability and Social Innovation” (CAPS) aims at designing and piloting online platforms creating awareness of sustainability problems and offering collaborative solutions based on networks (of people, of ideas, of sensors), enabling new forms of social innovation.
CAPS are expected to support environmentally aware, grassroots processes and practices to share knowledge, to achieve changes in lifestyle, production and consumption patterns, and to set up more participatory democratic processes. Such platforms can have very concrete impacts, for instance in empowering and motivating citizens to make informed decisions as consumers, or in fostering collective environmentally-‐savvy behavioural changes and a more direct democratic participation. Concrete examples of emerging areas include:
35
• Open Democracy: enabling citizens' participation in democratic processes by developing and applying new tools (e.g. voting, online consultation)
• Open Policy Making: better decision making based on open data
• Collaborative Economy: lending, exchange, swapping made to operate at scale
• Collaborative Making: developing new ways of manufacturing
• Collaborative Consumption: rethinking consumerism
• New Collaborative approaches to inclusion, agriculture, health, disaster management
In their analysis of CAPS, Arniani et al. discuss the following aspects of CAPS (Arniani et al. 2014):
• The term “collective” relates people doing things together. In the definition of EC, the term also encompasses the association of human and non-‐human entities. For instance, data can be gathered by both citizens and sensors, or can be aggregated and analysed by both citizens and computers.
• The term “awareness” is about relates understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for your own activity (Dourish and Bellotti, 1992). Awareness requires access to information. Support to people for acquiring information is thus a core concept of CAPS. Beyond the interpretation of Arniani et al, we also suggest the understanding of needs and problems that are central in an innovative approach.
• Merging “collective” and “awareness”, “collective awareness” requires the distribution of information on the activities between participants (human and non-‐human).
• ICT platforms have been central in the CAPs projects as a means to support collective awareness. These platforms are socio-‐technical solutions composed of various ICT tools, such as websites, forums, social networks, and collaborative platforms, deliberating tools and data visualization. A trend in these projects has been to follow open, participatory-‐oriented practices rather than to provide closed systems.
• The first societal challenge addressed as part of the CAPS initiative is sustainability. Initially the term “sustainability” was used in relation to
36
environmental concerns, for instance energy and water consumption. The concept of sustainability has been extended in order to include social and economic sustainability with the goal to quality of life of future generations.
• Finally “social innovation” is a central concept in CAPS. We discuss social innovation concept in chapter 2.
3.2 First Funded CAPS Projects Arniani et al 2014 classifies the CAPS projects that were first funded by the European Commission (EC) under the Call 10 in three groups (Arniani et al., 2014):
1. The projects aiming at raising awareness about a specific issue:
• CAP4Access: improving urban accessibility in European Regions.
• DecarboNet: creating awareness and behavioural change towards carbon dioxide emissions reduction.
• Wikirate: engaging citizen to rate companies on corporate social responsibility.
2. The projects aiming at providing tools for the CAPS ecosystem with focus on facilitating online debate and social innovation:
• CATALYST: developing collective intelligence and analytics tools to improve community deliberation.
• D-‐CENT: creating privacy-‐aware tools for direct democracy, participation and new economic models.
3. The coordination and support Actions aiming at facilitating interaction between CAPS projects, spreading their results and measuring their impact:
• CAPS2020: organising of annual CAPS events.
• IA4SI: providing tools for assessing the impact of social innovation actions.
• SCICAFE2.0: promoting new collaboration models.
• WEB-‐COSI: increasing trust in collectively generated statistics.
In the following subsections we provide more information about these projects. In particular, we try to find out how they relate to the key concepts in the
37
definition of CAPS (i.e., collective, awareness, ICT dimension, sustainability and openness). However, for some projects, little concrete information is available and the achieved results are poorly described. We observe that not all project include non-‐human entities in the collective approach.
The focus of the first funded CAPS projects relates principally to creating awareness about some social issue and to supporting discussions between participants. Some projects provide support for the collection of data from difference sources, their analysis and their visualization, and some about measuring impact. None of the projects address the collective creation of novel innovative solutions towards solving problems. The project may themselves create new innovative solutions, but the participants (i.e., the users of the platform) are not creators of the solutions. For example, CAP4Access provides new tools for improving accessibility. The users of the platform can provide data, but they do not develop the tools.
From those projects, SOCRATIC can learn how to recruit users and how to keep them engaged, how to foster the innovation process, in particular ideation, how to measure the impact of innovation. The Extreme Factories platform, i.e. the SOCRATIC platform baseline, includes features that overlap with the platforms developed in some of those projects. In that case, we can learn from their experiences in deploying the platforms. Some other projects provides tools for the CAPS ecosystem that complement with the Extreme Factories platform, for instance support for data collection. In that case we should consider integrating the tools whenever possible.
In addition to the first funded CAPS projects, two other CAPS-‐related initiatives funded by EC are relevant in our work:
• Digital Social Innovation in Europe (DSI): crowdmapping and analysing actors and networks.
• CHEST: The framework is completed by Seed Funding for Social Innovation Activities (CHEST), which offers €3 million in funding for digital social innovations through three open calls for European citizens and organisations
38
3.2.1 Raising awareness about a specific issue Project: CAP4Access (Collectively improving accessibility in European cities)
Duration: 2014-‐1016
Website: cap4access.eu/
The objective of CAP4Access (Collectively improving accessibility in European cities; 2014-‐1016; http://cap4access.eu/) is to develop and pilot-‐test methods and tools for collectively gathering and sharing spatial information for improving accessibility. The project focuses on online, crowdsourced maps and various methods for raising awareness for accessibility issues and collecting information about accessibility. OpenStreetMap and Wheelmap, the online map for wheelchair accessible places, are used as examples of best practices, upon which can be built further. The project adheres to the CAPS characteristics in the following manner:
• Collective: Data sources include "citizen humans as sensors", sensors in smartphones, and Public Sector Information, e.g. data held by local administrations and of relevance to accessibility.
• Awareness: Target groups include people requiring enhanced accessibility, grassroots initiatives supporting people with disabilities, policy-‐makers, planners and service providers with responsibility for the built environment, and the general public. MyAccessible.EU (http://myaccessible.eu) is a communication platform provided by CAP4Access in order to report the activities initiated by the CAP4Access partners and highlight the work of other activists and organisations working for accessibility in Europe.
• Sustainability: CAP4Access helps integrating disabled communities into society (social sustainability), saving public resources e.g. by helping municipalities to focus expenditures (economic sustainability) and saving natural resources e.g. by facilitating public transport use (ecological sustainability).
• Openness: The project outcomes are made available to everyone: any data gathered in the course of the project is available under an open licence and any tools being developed are open source.
39
Project: DecarboNet (A Decarbonisation Platform for Citizen Empowerment and Translating Collective Awareness into Behavioural Change)
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: www.decarbonet.eu).
DecarboNet is a project that investigates the potential of social platforms for mitigating climate change. The project is based on empowering users to monitor their CO2 footprint, sharing that information and engaging within collectives and environmentalists into campaigns to raise awareness and promote energy savings. By understanding the determinants of collective awareness and creating awareness, the project aims at triggering behavioural changes.
The project adheres to the CAPS characteristics in the following manner:
• Collective awareness: The project is building a collective knowledge repository enriched by third-‐party content from the news and social media to increase awareness among citizens about the long-‐term impact of their actions on climate change. How people participate in the knowledge building process by generating, sharing and consuming information is also analysed, providing insights into the process of raising collective awareness.
• Sustainability: The main focus is environmental sustainability. The work has also impact on economical sustainability as the energy consumption behavioural changes should lead to the saving natural resources.
• Openness: The project has developed a number of open tools (see below).
Some of the tools developed by DecarboNet are anchored into the theme of reducing CO2 footprint, while others are a bit more generic:
• An API that parses textual data and extract climate change indicators out of it: http://services.gate.ac.uk/decarbonet/indicators/
• A toolkit for extracting and caching data from social web sites (including Flickr, Yahoo and Wikipedia) http://ewrt.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ On top of that, it seems to offer some language processing capabilities to be applied to the data.
• A library https://github.com/weblyzard/weblyzard_api to detect the sentiments and emotions described in a text.
40
• A dashboard that allows visualizations of topics discussed in social media and a variety of other content sources http://www.ecoresearch.net/climate/
• A home energy monitor together with a platform that enables the users to share and work together in actions related to their energy expenditure: https://energyuse.eu/?new
Project: Wikirate (The Wikirate Project -‐ Crowdsource Better Companies)
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: wikirate.org
The project has created a platform allowing the users to collaborate in order to collectively to rate companies on corporate social responsibility. The users can create claims about companies and attach the sources, which support those claims, and trigger further discussion. The project adheres to the CAPS characteristics in the following manner:
• Collective: The project provides an open social networking system that allows Internet users to cooperatively create and share knowledge on company behaviour. The information may come from public sources, from "sensors" such as webcams, from individual users uploads, or from external whistleblowing websites.
• Awareness: The accumulated information is displayed to the users allowing them to compare and rate such companies. Wikirate
• Sustainability: Wikirate has the vision of helping consumers express themselves as ethical economic citizens. Their system encourages the community to act on various sustainability aspects such as climate change, natural resource management and markets concerns.
• Openness: The website is based on an open-‐source software platform called “Wagn” (http://wagn.org/).The improvements to the platform are freely available. Wikirate offers an open data infrastructure by supporting an application-‐programming interface (API) that allows anyone to access the website's data.
Wikirate defines KPIS and tags related to corporate responsibility which may be relevant for SOCRATIC
41
3.2.2 Facilitating online debate and social innovation Project: CATALYST (Collective applied intelligence and analytics for social innovation)
Duration: 2013-‐2015
Website: catalyst-‐fp7.eu
The project has developed solutions for supporting collaborative deliberation and argumentation in complex public debates. The project focuses on improving collaborative knowledge creation (Sensemaking and Ideation). The project adheres to the CAPS characteristics in the following manner:
• Collective awareness: The project provides human-‐assisted online tools to harvest data and knowledge from social media, and to facilitate collective ideation, creativity and citizen engagement. It also provides analytics to measure the quality of the collective intelligence and to make collaborative processes more effective.
• Sustainability: The project does not explicitly explain mention what type of sustainability it addresses. They rather provide generic solutions that can be exploited to debate about various kinds of sustainability concerns.
• Openness: All project developments are carried out under an open source / free software license.
CATALYST provides a set of ideation support tools and tools capable of analyze the discussion text and measure indicators out of them. The tools are listed below:
• Assembl (http://assembl.org/) provides a GUI with elements (topic linking, ordering, highlighting of updates, etc.) to support ideation discussions
• Litemap (http://catalyst-‐fp7.eu/open-‐tools/litemap/) allows users to tags pages and map them for themselves so that they can more easily connect information dispersed in the web. The maps are structured as Challenges that can be addressed by ideas, which can, then, be supported or discouraged by arguments. The maps can be discussed and collaboratively defined through theirs online platform.
• Debatehub (https://debatehub.net/) provides ideation discussion and prioritization.
42
• Edgesend (http://catalyst-‐fp7.eu/open-‐tools/edgesense/) is an analytic tool for web communities based on Drupal.
• CIdashboard (https://cidashboard.net/) provides analytics on conversational and social dynamic and is integrated in debatehub. In the case, we wish to apply analytics for the conversations within Extreme Factories, this is a relevant tool.
Project: D-‐CENT (Decentralised Citizens ENgagement Technologies;
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: dcentproject.eu
D-‐CENT aims at creating useful collaborative tools for direct democracy and economic empowerment, as well as research. In a first experiment, the project address democratic engagement. The project that created tools for facilitating users to discuss, deliberate, draft policies and vote those. It deals with the same creative process applied to ideation for innovation, but here applied to policies. They have created a blockchain based currency allowing the creation of social wallets which rewards those responsible for social contributions The project adheres to the CAPS characteristics in the following manner:
• Collective awareness: D-‐CENT support citizen in sharing information about policies and debating these policies. The goal is to make awareness about democratic processes and to increase democratic engagement.
• Sustainability: The project does not explicitly explain mention what type of sustainability it addresses. Allowing citizen to participate in debates related to policies is a form of social inclusion.
• Openness: D-‐CENT provides an open platform for collective awareness. The platform integrates existing open-‐source codebases.
• The project provides platform for people to collaboratively draft policies:
• Obective8 (https://objective8.dcentproject.eu/) is policy related tool rather than an ideation tool
43
3.2.3 Facilitating coordination between CAPS projects Project: IA4SI (Impact Assessment For Social Innovation)
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: ia4si.eu
The IA4SI project aims to develop a structured methodology able to evaluate the potential socio-‐political, economic and environmental impacts of grassroots social innovation initiatives on society and to map key characteristics able to determine a wider uptake of the initiatives at social level. The project has developed:
• A methodology http://ia4si.eu/wp-‐content/uploads/2013/11/Shot-‐description-‐of-‐the-‐methodology.pdf
• A questionnaire to measure the impact of a CAPS project http://www.ia4si.eu/toolkit-‐users/welcome.php
• A network for CAPS projects and for increasing awareness of the CAPS platforms http://www.impact4you.eu/
Project: SciCafe 2.0 (Science cafés)
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: scicafe2.reading.ac.uk
Science cafés are an informal and innovative way of communicating science and providing for grassroots social innovation and citizens empowerment. The project draws inspiration in traditional Science Cafes for building platform for online discussion and knowledge co-‐generation. The initial goals of the project were ambitious. For instance, the project aimed at providing an observatory for crowdsourcing, support local and global scale knowledge sharing and co-‐evolution of ideas, approaches for engaging citizen in democratic consultative processes, metrics and KPIs for social engagement. We cannot however find much information about the results on the project web page. The Citizens’ Say Knowledge Exchange (http://scicafe2-‐0.european-‐observatory-‐for-‐crowdsourcing.eu/ ) is described. This is a tool for knowledge exchange and collaborative generation, which can tap into existing knowledge, databases such as Wikipedia. The tool seems however still under construction.
Project: Web-‐COSI (Web COmmunities for Statistics for Social Innovation)
44
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: www.webcosi.eu
Better statistical information is one of the pillars needed by communities to make smart strategic and operational choices for sustainability and social Innovation. Web-‐COSI is a coordination support action that aims at engaging citizens in the area of statistics and collecting new measures of social progress and well being.
The main outcome of the project Web-‐COSI is the development of a Wiki of Progress Statistics or Wikiprogress Data Portal. The Wiki of Progress Statistics is set up on the Wikiprogress platform (http://www.wikiprogress.org/) hosted by OECD, an open, crowd-‐sourced database of well-‐being and sustainability projects from around the world. Through the Wikiprogress Data Portal (http://wikiprogress.org/data/dataset?res_type=data), it is possible to register and share any initiative, data and reports.
SOCRATIC has the goal to collect information about the initiatives related to the FN sustainability goals. The Wikiprogress platform is therefore relevant to the project.
3.2.4 Crowdmapping and funding social innovation initiatives Project: DSI (Digital Social Innovation in Europe)
Website: digitalsocial.eu
DSI is an initiative that provides built a living map of organisations that use digital technologies for the social good. Their web sites enable the user to explore organizations and research projects that make use of digital technology in order to deal with social innovation.
DSI has also investigated more than 250 case studies of digital social innovation and provide a classification of the studied cases. The study covers different organizations and initiatives working on different topics, such as education, health and well-‐being, democracy, public services, science. For each case, they describe the initiative, the history including the rationale back the establishment of the initiative, the mission, the type of organisation (e.g. commercial, non-‐profit organisation and research network), the contribution to social innovation, the impact, the technology used, the way the initiative is funded, the main barriers to innovation and means to overcome barriers.
45
DSI also identifies some main policy issues and potential areas for intervention, such as citizen engagement, privacy and data protection, open access and open standards and new models for organising collective resources. It provides recommendations to policy makers.
Project: DSI4EU (Digital Social Innovation for Europe Europe)
Duration: 2016-‐2017
Website: cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/198820_en.html
DSI4EU was newly launched that aimed at growing and scaling the current Digital Social Innovation network of projects and organisations. It will bring together social entrepreneurs. It will also help communities to share data, to collaborate to solve societal problems and to scale their initiatives. It will provide training and mentoring. Further DSI4EU will upgrade the digitalsocial.eu platform in order to support these goals and also in order to activate collective awareness with a large number of citizens across Europe.
Projects: CHEST (Collective enHanced Environment for Social Tasks)
Duration: 2013-‐2016;
Website: www.chest-‐project.eu/
The goal of CHEST was to activate social interaction and social innovation, and to increment the number of initiatives that use collective awareness approaches and to increase their success rate. The project has produced training material for innovators and provided seed finance for social innovation projects. It also launched a forum for people interested in social innovation (http://mog.eng.it/chestcommunity/). However the forum does not seem to be active any longer
3.3 Other CAPS-‐related projects and initiatives
3.3.1 EU Funded Projects Beyond the projects related to EU CAPS initiative, several activities can be defined as CAPS. The European Commission has also funded CAPS-‐related projects via other calls than Call 10. We describe some of them here.
Project: P2Pvalue (Techno-‐social platform for sustainable models and value generation in commons-‐based peer production in the Future Internet)
46
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: www.p2pvalue.eu
Commons based peer production (CBPP) is “a term coined by Harvard Law School professor Yochai Benkler. It describes a new model of socioeconomic production in which large numbers of people work cooperatively (usually over the Internet). Commons-‐based projects generally have less rigid hierarchical structures than those under more traditional business models.” (Wikipedia). In P2PValue, CBPP is considered as a new form of social innovation. Voluntarism and autonomy are key characteristics of the collaboration in CBPP. The project refers to several successful initiatives such as Wikipedia, Open source software projects such as Drupal and Moodle, and open hardware projects such as Arduino and Raspberry Pi.
The project has contributed CBPP theory, in particular through determining the factors for success, productivity, and resilience in communities (“best practices”). It has also developed a set of value metrics and reward mechanisms to increase citizen participation in CBPP. It has also has developed a software platform in order to facilitate the creation of resilient and sustainable CBPP communities.
The project adheres to the CAPS characteristics in the following manner:
• Collective awareness: The project is about supporting the free sharing of knowledge and skills in order to develop new products and services. The project does not mention the involvement of non-‐human resources.
• Sustainability: The project aims at supporting the creation of sustainable communities. It does not explicitly mention sustainability as for the impact of the collaborative production.
• Openness: P2Pvalue provides an open web-‐based CBPP archive, with the collected data-‐sets, surveys, reports, Open Educational Resources and open-‐access publications, freely available to other researchers and third-‐parties under an open copyleft license. This includes a project public repository with all code available as free/open source.
The platform developed by P2PValue includes:
• SwellRT (http://swellrt.org/): a real time collaborative text editor and API and can be included in other applications
47
• Teem (https://app.teem.works/#/frontpage): a platform for collaboration in projects, dubbed as crowd-‐doing by the project.
● Teem app (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.p2pvalue.pear2pear) an Android client to the Teem platform.
Project: USEMP (User Empowerment for Enhanced Online Presence Management)
Duration: 2013-‐2016
Website: www.usemp-‐project.eu
USEMP aims at empowering users by enhancing their control over the data they distribute or interact with. For instance, many users of social networks think that they do not have enough control of the data they share. USEMP wishes to advance the understanding of privacy issues on the Web and to raise users' awareness about the advantages and risks related to sharing personal data. Further the project provides tools that provide the users with means to be easily informed of their privacy status, to acknowledge the potential value of the information they share on social networks and to remove/change the visibility of data
3.3.2 Other Projects Besides the European projects funded under the CAPS initiative that are described in the following, there exist a number of projects worldwide that address societal problems through network effect, in line with CAPS. Several of them are listed on the website for CAPS. We provide this list in Appendix 9.2.The examples address different issues such as consumer awareness, digital economy, democracy and technology provision. All these examples have a narrow scope, for instance energy consumption awareness or collecting data to enhance urban mobility. Differently, SOCRATIC aims at providing a platform and an underlying methodology that support a combination of sustainability areas. The binding between the areas is the connection to the Global Sustainability Goals (GSG), as defined by United Nations.
48
3.4 CAPS Platform Overview Arniani et al 2014 provides an overview of different features supported by platforms developed in the CAPS projects (Arniani et al., 2014). In this section, we summarize these features and we include the mapping between features and projects provided by Arnuini et al. After we have refined the requirements for the SOCRATIC platform, this mapping can help to identify what platform components can be exploited in SOCRATIC.
Arniani et al 2014 identifies 14 kinds of features:
Ø Analytics and visualisation: The CAPS projects support different types of social innovation analytics together with the visualisations needed to make analytics usable and understandable by different end user communities. An example is discourse analytics and understanding how idea relate to each other.
o Projects: CATALYST (discourse analytics; engagement analytics), DECARBONET (user behaviours; engagement analytics), CAP4ACCESS and I4ASI (engagement analytics).
Ø Collective assessment: This is about evaluating the results in a collective production process. This can be supported through voting. This can also be supported by algorithms, e.g. looking at human interactions with the results histories.
o Projects: SCICAFE 2.0 (polling or voting), WIKIRATE and CATALYST (reputation and ranking systems) and USEMP (economic value)
Ø Crowdsourcing: This is about reaching people with different skills that have the right knowledge to contribute to particular tasks.
o Projects: CAP4ACCESS (collective mapping) ,CATALYST (deliberation), CHEST (crowd voting), D-‐CENT(social currencies), P2PVALUE (directories of initiatives), WEB-‐COSI (statistical data collections) and WIKIRATE (reputation and rating systems).
Ø e-‐Democracy, e-‐Participation, Direct Democracy: this is about engaging citizen to participate in public debates and democratic decision-‐making.
o Projects: CATALYST, D-‐CENT, SCICAFE 2.0 (testing approaches in real communities)
49
Ø Geo-‐mapping, Geo-‐Planning, Geo-‐Navigation: This is about collectively gathering and sharing spatial information.
○ Projects: CAP4ACCESS
Ø Motivation and engagement: This is about understanding why people use (or don't use) collaborative platforms, and what influences their perception, adoption, and continuous usage of such technologies. This is about developing strategies to motivate people to be engaged.
o Projects: DECARBONET (competition, collaboration and online discussions), CATALYST (argumentation within a social group) and SCICAFE2.0 (tracking other users' engagement).
Ø New economic models: This is about developing new value models that fit better with new ways work can be organised using CAPS.
o Projects: CHEST (new sustainability initiatives for social innovation activities), D-‐CENT (new distributions of social currencies in relation to social movements), P2PVALUE (new value models and theories) and USEMP (new valuation practices of personal data).
Ø (Open) Data integration: This is about integrating user-‐generated data from different media, analysing the content as well as user participation, and providing insightful visualisations.
o Projects: D-‐CENT, WIKIRATE and WEB-‐COSI (providing standards, tools and methods for data federation), DECARBONET and D-‐CENT (modelling of social media data for mining and presenting them in an aggregated way), and CATALYST, DECARBONET and WIKIRATE (aggregating data from different social media sources such as Facebook, Twitter and emailing systems).
Ø Online deliberation -‐ From Group-‐Based to Large-‐Scale: This is about structuring conversations in a way that makes it easy for other people or machines to make sense of the knowledge that is embedded in the dialogue.
o Projects: CATALYST (human sensing and content harvesting), CATALYST and SCICAFE2.0 (idea creation, sharing and exchange), CATALYST (collective sensemaking and structured
50
online debate), and CATALYST and CHEST (idea prioritisation and assessment).
Ø Peer production and collaborative knowledge creation: this is about investigating new forms of collaborative production and knowledge creation. The CAPS projects address various issues such as the organisation of productive efforts, the value mechanisms, the knowledge construction and rating.
o Projects: P2PVALUE (providing a directory of CBPP projects and initiatives), SCICAFE2.0, WEB-‐COSI, and WIKIRATE (leverage the characteristics of CBPP in delivering their results), SCICAFE2.0 (statistical data and scientific themes), WIKIRATE (passing through knowledge on corporate social responsibility), P2PVALUE (value mechanisms), SCICAFE2.0 (knowledge construction), WIKIRATE (rating and reputation systems), and WIKIRATE and WEB-‐COSI (data quality discrimination).
Ø Privacy-‐aware tools and applications: This is about the management of privacy in CAPS approaches and maintaining trust in the technology that support collective processes. For instance, ensuring that participants should be in full control of their data.
o Projects: D-‐CENT (privacy-‐aware digital tools for direct democratic and economic empowerment), FOCAL (privacy concerns of user data and location), USEMP (secure environment for effective control over data).
Ø Social networking and social media enhancement: This is about exploiting online social networks combined with the Internet of Things (IoT) and cloud services in order to support open online social media and distributed knowledge co-‐ creation. The network effect can be maximised using sharing to support social innovation.
o Projects: CAPS2020 (synergies between CAPS initiatives), D-‐CENT (distributed social networking platform for large-‐scale collaboration to solve social problems and citizen participation in the democratic process), USEMP (tools allowing users of online social networks greater control over the personal data they share within the network)
51
3.5 Analysis of CAPS platforms fostering the SI process Since many of the CAPS projects developed or taped into Ideation tools, similarly to Extreme Factories platform (Section 5), we have chosen to experiment with the available CAPS platforms with the aim to understand how they relate to the Extreme Factories and whether we should reconsider our choice for baseline platform. First we describe some of the characteristics of ideation platforms that we look for in the different platforms, then we describe in a few lines how those features are present on them, and finally we map them together with ExtremeFactories as to facilitate a comparison.
3.5.1 Platform Characteristics The following list of characteristics of ideation platforms is created based on the requirements and characteristics of the ideation process as studied in (Murray, Caulier-‐Grice and Mulgan 2010), and also through the analysis of the different features provided by the platforms.
Matching: This is about support for matching ideas with the interests and capabilities of the users. This kind of feature can both drive user engagement, and facilitates the user exploration of the proposed topics. Some mechanisms of matching are:
• support of tagging/labelling of ideas;
• support of tagging/labelling of user’s skills or interests;
• recommendation of ideas or users based on tag compatibility.
Idea/challenge mapping: This is about linking similar ideas together and also linking ideas with external resources. This feature can be supported by idea tagging. It can include the following functionalities:
• semantic search of ideas;
• linking and presenting ideas and challenges that are developed using the platform that are related to each other;
• linking ideas or challenges within the platform with outside world, e.g., ideas found in social media.
Support for ideation organization: This is about support for organizing ideas and steering the ideation process. It includes:
52
• idea voting;
• idea commenting/discussing;
• moderation and structuring of idea discussion (such as having a workflow that drives the brainstorming to a final consensus).
Engagement support: This is about driving the users to keep a continuous participation through the platform. It also includes mechanisms that make it easier for them to spot wash what happened since the last time he/she used the platform, such as:
• integration with social media.
• notifications when someone comments or interacts with his/her ideas, comments and other forms of collaboration. And the highlighting of what is new since the previous time the user interacted with the platform;
• gamification;
Scope: This is defining who has the right to access the information. The scope of participation offered by the different platforms varies. Ideas may be available publically, for users with a account in the platform, or for members of a community or group defined within the platform. Similar types of access rights also applied for the different collaboration capabilities linked to the ideas. While some platforms just allow one type of scope for all collaboration, other allows the ideators to define the scope of the idea at the time he creates it, thus, supporting multiple possible scopes. To simplify, we define the different scope levels as:
• global: the ideas or projects are visible for all, also users with no account in the platform;
• internal: all members of the platform (with an account in the platform) can view and collaborate in the ideas;
• group: the platform supports the creation of groups and the collaboration around the ideas is restricted to members of a group.
Integrated tools: This is about the capability to integrate other tools, and/or to offer the possibility to other tools to integrate them.
Open Source: This is about being available as open source, with it’s source code publicly available and with the possibility of being reused by others under the terms of an open source license such as LGPL or others
53
3.5.2 Tested CAPS platforms In this section we described the characteristics of the platforms that we have tested. We use the characteristics presented in the previous sub-‐section. The analysis is primarily based on the demo/hosted version of the different platforms available as per the 11th of March 2016. In addition, we have used the documentation of the platforms when available, e.g. wiki, web page or deliverable.
Assembl (http://catalyst-‐fp7.eu/open-‐tools/assembl/): Assembl is an ideation tool, which organizes the ideas into a discussion table and provides an array of features for organizing ideas and supporting engagement. It supports highlighting extracts in discussions, commenting, voting and creating announcement. It also supports creativity sessions related to ideas. However, except for commenting, the features did not work or were confusing.
Figure 4 -‐ Snapshot of Assembl
The engagement support in Assembl includes getting notifications when someone provides input (commenting/voting/etc.) to an idea to which the user participates, and highlighting what recently happened in the platform e.g., new ideas. Those mechanisms are implemented in a visually attractive fashion, though the configuration of notifications is a bit overwhelming: there are too many options for defining what to subscribe. The engagement support also includes sharing the discussion on different social media channels.
54
It is unclear how much Assembl supports matching. It is possible to describe the synthesis of ideas but it is not clear whether automatic matching of ideas is supported. The platform also includes a button for getting inspiration, but this one did not work under testing. Assembl provides some support to link ideas within the same context, however based on our usage, we cannot be sure that this works well.
Litemap (http://catalyst-‐fp7.eu/open-‐tools/litemap/): Litemap offers a different approach to ideation by enabling the discussion of ideas and their refinement into a solution in the form of a visual map. The map helps shaping the process, as ideas are mapped to problems and arguments are mapped to ideas. Although the approach seems intuitive, the UI controls available for mapping the problem where a bit confusing, harming the natural simplicity of a graphic map. On top of that, the interactions elements were slow.
55
Figure 5 -‐ Snapshot of Litemap
Besides the collaborative aspect of assembling the idea maps, Litemap allows the users to vote on ideas and arguments, link them to external resources and search for ideas in the platform. When it comes to engagement support, the platform implements email alerts and the possibility to “follow” users or maps. However, we did not see any clear results out of following a map and therefore we are not sure if it works.
Debatehub (http://catalyst-‐fp7.eu/open-‐tools/debatehub/): Debatehub looks similar to Litemap but it does not support the mapping functionality. The UI appearance and the concepts supporting its design (i.e. ideas, pro and con arguments) are similar. Also, just like Litemap, it supports semantic searching and
56
the linking of ideas and arguments to external sources. However, Debatehub differs from Litemap in that the User Interface and elements are such that they drive the moderation of the ideation process. The tool enables the organization of ideation in the following sub-‐phases: discussion, filtering/reducing and taking decisions. In addition it supports voting of issues, ideas and arguments, and the moderation of those including the merging of ideas.
Figure 6 -‐ Snapshot Debatehub
When it comes to user engagement, Debatehub supports digest notifications and alerts about new related content. However UI-‐wise, the implementation is much less attractive than Assembl. The digest alert comes through an email that resembles a log file and the UI alerts are not present in the “user home”, but on a
57
side panel as part of the debate. Differently from the previous platforms, it allows different scoping of debates, as you can make them private within a group.
Objective8 (https://objective8.dcentproject.eu): Objective8 supports collaborative ideation for the drafting of policies. The organization of the policy drafting works by enabling users to ask questions, answer to them and vote. Users can also comment on the policy drafts via the platform, while drafts can be typed directly in the platform or imported from Google Drive. Therefore allowing the users to collaboratively write the policy in Google Drive and easily bring it to a wider discussion in the platform.
Figure 7 -‐ Snapshot Objective8
58
When it comes to engagement, the alpha version of Objective8 available during our test did not offer any support. However, the project’s website mentions that the tool will support notifications and gamification elements.
SciCafe 2.0 (http://scicafe2-‐0.european-‐observatory-‐for-‐crowdsourcing.eu/ ): The SciCafe 2.0 Tool aims at reproducing the dialogue, knowledge exchange and generation of science cafes in an online fashion. The available live demo is not yet mature enough to assess the characteristics described in the previous subsection. We found out that SciCafe 2.0 Tool implements a kind of user profiling: users can specify their roles and involvement in public, private and volunteer sectors. However, it is not clear how this information is used.
Figure 8 -‐ Snapshot Scicafe2.0
We could not completely assess the capabilities towards the knowledge collaboration since we could not understand the UI elements and the knowledge collaboration workflow. However, it seems that the collaboration takes form
59
through an activity feed centred on the knowledge item and that multiple media formats (text, video, files) are supported in the collaboration.
Teem (https://app.teem.works/#/frontpage): Teem is a platform which the creators describe as Crowd-‐doing. It allows the creation of project teams where the different needs of the project are defined in a To-‐do fashion and made searchable by anyone interested in collaborate. The demo version of Teem was very unstable under test. Based what worked, we were only able to understand the rationale behind the platform, but not to identify the characteristics.
Figure 9 -‐ Snapshot of Teem
Apart from the sharing and collaborative creation of the project’s To-‐dos, Teem supports a chat room linked to each team where they can discuss and where new inputs in the To-‐dos are notified. Also it is worth mentioning that the collaboration is scoped through communities and team within or across the communities.
Among all the platforms we have tested, Teem is the one with the most attractive and modern design. However the demo version was quite unstable.
3.5.3 Summary of the characteristics of the tested CAPS Platforms
In order to compare the different platforms we have graded their support to the characteristics described in Section 4.2.1 from 0 to 3. For each sub-‐characteristic present, we assign 1 point under the characteristic, so that if none of the sub
60
characteristics was present it would get 0 points. If all of sub characteristics within a characteristic is implemented, then that characteristics will receive 3 points.If the characteristic was presented in the platform UI but it's functionality was not working or just partially implemented, we provided half of the grade.
At last, when it comes to Scope, Open source and Integrated tools, we just described their support/applicability to the platforms instead of grading them
Table 1-‐ Summary CAPS systems
Tool
Peop
le
Matching
Idea and
challenge
map
ping
Idea
Organ
izati
on
Engageme
nt Sup
port
Integrated
tools
Scop
e
Ope
n Source
Assembl 0,5 0,5 2,5 2 External chat tool Global? Yes
Litemap 0 1 2 0,5 Global/ Internal/ Group
Yes
Debatehub 0 1 3 1 Analytics to measure participation based on CI Dashboard (from catalyst project)
Global/ internal/ Group
Yes
objective8 0 0 2 0 Import draft text from Google Drive
Internal/ group?
Yes
Scicafe 2.0 0,5 0,5 0,5 ? Integrated chat tool (google hangout and calendar planned)
? ?
Teem 1 0,5 0 1 Integrated chat Global/ Internal/ Group
Yes
Extreme Factories (EFF)
1 2.5 3 1,5 Integrated Project Management Module,
Internal/ Group
No, but EFF
61
Tool
Peop
le
Matching
Idea and
challenge
map
ping
Idea
Organ
izati
on
Engageme
nt Sup
port
Integrated
tools
Scop
e
Ope
n Source
REST API to interface with external tools
parts re-‐used in SOCRATIC will be released as Open Source
62
4 Relevant knowledge generation and management platforms
The following chapter presents software solutions relevant for the generation and management of knowledge based on State-‐of-‐the-‐Art ICT platforms. In the beginning of this chapter, sections 4.1 and 4.2 introduce general information about traditional and semantic State-‐of-‐the-‐Art Wiki systems as well as their type of usage (Section 4.3), whereas section 4.4 describes several (commercial and free of charge) wiki solutions available on the current market and introduces commercial and free of charge Enterprise Content Management (ECM) solutions such as Alfresco and MS Sharepoint. In SOCRATIC, these solutions could be utilized as a basis for the construction of the SOCRATIC methodology and platform e.g. for the collaboration in knowledge generation and management in the different innovation life–cycle steps. The chapter closes with a short conclusion of the solutions presented with respect to the SOCRATIC project.
4.1 Traditional Wiki Systems During the development of software design principles in the research area of object-‐oriented programming, the so-‐called, Portland Pattern Repository, as an important milestone, originated as a tool for the management of knowledge gathered during the research processes around Cunningham. In the technical report paper by Beck and Cunningham (Cunningham W., 1987) the software design concept for object-‐oriented programming was adapted by Cunningham to develop the so-‐called “WikiWikiWeb”, the first Wiki-‐Website of all which went internationally online in 1995. The nowadays used term “wiki” represents an abbreviation of the WikiWikiWeb invented by Cunningham, whereas “wikiwiki” is Hawaiian for “speedy” or “fast” (Schaffert, 2006), (WeheWehe, 2015). Cunningham’s intention was to give people the opportunity to create, edit, refactor, layout and link webpages to each other (hyperlinks) within their web browser in order to exchange knowledge and neglect the centralised publication of knowledge on the web. Since then, wiki systems are seen as tools to manage content online in a fast and easy way by modifying simple syntax with the help of a mark-‐up language (Figura M., 2015). Regarding latter mark-‐up, Cunningham suggested a mark-‐up language different from HTML, WikiML (Buffa, 2008).
63
Traditional wiki systems like the famous Wikipedia for example, where knowledge of all different kinds is intensively created, used, modified, refactored and linked, have the following main features in common (Schaffert, 2006), (Figura M., 2015):
• Web browser Accessibility In every wiki system, all content is created, edited, refactored etc. within a simple and easy to understand graphical user interface in the web browser. There is no need of installing additional software plugins, extensions and via the World Wide Web, everyone is able to provide and share knowledge from any everywhere in the world with a simple computer and few requirements like a valid internet connection.
• Wiki Markup Language: In order to reach as many content providers as possible, wiki systems have simplified markup syntax for formatting the content appropriately or provide also a WYSIWYG-‐Editor. This is easy to use and much simpler than e.g. HTML, especially for non-‐technical users.
• Backup Functionality: Each provided knowledge in a wiki system is stored within a database system. Thus, the content changes over time are versioned, i.e. copies of the stored data are kept in order to avoid accidental deletions or modifications of knowledge, which are not correct or valid. Moreover, wikis allow comparing different versions of the same page.
• Search Functionality: Every wiki system provides the functionality to search its content by a full-‐text search over all pages in order to facilitate navigation and grants a fast access to knowledge to whoever wants to use it.
• User Management: Basically most wiki systems grant access to everyone, i.e. everyone can provide, edit or delete content. In the context of user management it is also possible to restrict the access to certain users or groups like in classical content management systems. There, wiki systems provide user management capabilities like Login/Logout, read-‐only, role of system administrator.
• Collaborative Content Creation: Wiki systems benefit intensively from systematisation of knowledge, i.e. from categorizing and tagging content by the users collaboratively. If someone adds new content to the wiki, others can also add additional knowledge, extend it, correct it or even
64
delete misleading entries. Possibilities to discuss in forums serve the balance of knowledge and the exchange of meta-‐knowledge of a wiki entry.
• Upload Functionality: On the one hand, all knowledge is provided by descriptive texts in wiki systems. On the other hand, all wiki systems have opportunities to advance the provided text-‐based knowledge by uploading files like comprehensive documents, figures, source code, etc. in order to get the knowledge evolving.
4.2 Semantic Wiki Systems A semantic wiki is a traditional wiki based system but extends this by technologies inherited from the Semantic Web such as Linked Data, Vocabularies (and ontologies), Query or Inference. By this, a semantic wiki contains a comprehensive model of its knowledge stored. With the help of this formalised knowledge, it is possible to make the linked pages, the relations between entities and so on available for the processing of machines (agents, services). Some wikis use ontologies for the (semi-‐automatic) annotation of content, others for editing ontologies, i.e. the underlying model (Buffa, 2008). In order to enable machines to access the knowledge stored, annotation of the existing system structure elements like links for navigation is used, i.e. annotation means description with symbols and by meaning (Schaffert, 2006), (Davis, 2003). By annotating the content of the semantic wiki system, all semantic knowledge belongs explicitly to a certain page where it is stored, i.e. each page represents an element in the ontology (classes and properties) of the underlying model, which could be more deeply described by metadata on that specific page (Krötzsch, 2006). A very basic example, which illustrates the above, explained annotations are the following: a relation between Goethe and Frankfurt am Main can be semantically described (annotated) with born in. Semantic Wiki specific main features, which can be found throughout the wiki literature are comprised as the following (Schaffert, 2006):
• Annotations of relationships between pages • Context-‐aware presentation of content based on given annotations • Enhanced navigation due to annotated links • Semantic search • Reasoning support for deriving additional implicit knowledge
65
4.3 Types of Usage Table 2 -‐ Types of usage of different wiki system categories
Type Description
Public Wiki Systems Plain Wiki System
Enterprise Wiki Systems Enterprise Wikis are corporate wiki systems which meet requirements of a company. Such wikis systems have similar main basic features such as simple content creation, modification and deletion, structuring and navigation of knowledge, scalability etc. as public wiki systems like Wikipedia but differ in the following points significantly:
• Employee motivation • Quality Management and Structuring • Accessibility of contents • Utilisation of knowledge • Anonymity of use • Contrast to already existing systems
Personal Wiki Systems In personal wikis users keep their concepts and ideas personally and individually
Structured Wiki Systems Combination of a public plain wiki system and structured database entities
Peer-‐to-‐peer Wiki Systems Sharing wiki sites between user only, within a server-‐less environment
4.4 State of Market In this section, current Wiki and Enterprise Content Management (ECM) systems on the market are described briefly, whereas some are commercial (e.g. Atlassian Confluence, Alfresco Enterprise Edition) and others are open-‐source (e.g. MediaWiki, TWiki, Alfresco Community Edition). All wikis are systems without semantic capabilities by default. Some wikis like for example MediaWiki have free, open-‐source extensions on the market like Semantic MediaWiki.
4.4.1 Wiki Systems Atlassian Confluence Confluence is a commercial product of the Australian software company Atlassian, which also develops, sells, and maintains products like the issue management tool JIRA or the code repository management tool
66
Bitbucket. Confluence is a traditional wiki system designed as a so-‐called Enterprise Wiki for team collaboration, agile development, internal communication and knowledge management. For generating content like creating, removing, etc. Confluence uses a so-‐called Textile-‐Wikimarkup and additionally a rich text WYSIWYG-‐Editor, an intuitive Drag & Drop functionality to e.g. include attachments to a certain page, search and autocomplete functionalities (e.g. for macros and links) and moreover the include of macros, which can be used as templates for a fast and easy knowledge reuse and content creation. Additionally Confluence can be easily extended by plugins, macros and add-‐ons from the Atlassian’s own marketplace or via developed with the help of the Atlassian Confluence API (Atlassian, 2015).
MediaWiki Another wiki system on the market is MediaWiki. It’s a free and open-‐source management system for knowledge and it was originally developed as the basic structure of the famous Wikipedia system. In the meantime, MediaWiki is used in numerous systems and enterprises (as Enterprise Wiki) e.g. like in Wikipedia and AboutUs.org etc. MediaWiki provides much functionality for knowledge management like reading, editing, personal customisation features and wiki administration capabilities (MediaWiki, 2003).
Semantic MediaWiki MediaWiki supports no semantic functionalities by default. For this, Semantic MediaWiki is used in order to extend the basic MediaWiki functionalities with capabilities of the Semantic Web, where “[…] it lets users store data in wiki pages, and query it elsewhere, thus turning a wiki that uses it into a semantic wiki.” (Krötzsch, 2006), (SemanticMediaWiki, 2006). By supporting features like ontology reasoning via RDF, OWL and SPARQL, automatic-‐generated lists, semantic maps and semantic search etc., a Semantic MediaWiki system enables machines to process wiki-‐knowledge in order to find and display the answer for the question. Thus, Semantic MediaWiki (SMW) is an extension of MediaWiki and was initially developed by several contributors from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany. For now, SMW is actively used in more than 300 public wikis around the world and it is also used internally in companies like Johnson & Johnson, Philips and Pfizer (SemanticMediaWiki, 2006).
TWiki A more technical oriented wiki system is called Twiki and widely used within intranets of medium-‐ and big-‐sized enterprises as a document and knowledge management system. Twiki is free and open-‐source and holds the following features (TWiki, 2007): WYSIWYG Editor based on TinyMCE, Automatic
67
linking of pages. Structured dynamic content, Web-‐applications via forms, File attachments, Revision control, Access control, Extensions via plugins, Skin-‐based User Interface, Web-‐Feeds and email notification, No additional database (persistence in files), and Enterprise Wiki. The main difference to MediaWiki for example is the easy creation of form based applications. Unlike MediaWiki pages, Twiki pages have the ability to generate and process variables and form data out of the source code of the page. This enables end-‐users to develop form based applications with only a minimum of programming skills (TWiki, 2007)
Basically, every stated wiki solution can be used for social innovation activities, whereas none of them were originally designed and implemented as a specific social innovation software system. MediaWiki for example holds extensions, which might be useful in the context of social innovation e.g. semantic capabilities, search, project management, enhanced role/user management, workflow management, notification system, social collaboration like discussions and social profiles. A possible drawback of all these wiki systems concerning Social Innovation might be their general character per se, i.e. end-‐users have to define the social innovation characteristics like workflows, site structure, roles and users themselves based on the available wiki support and or documentation
4.4.2 Enterprise Content Management (ECM) Systems Alfresco The Alfresco Enterprise Content Management (ECM) platform is a commercial and open-‐source available ECM platform that is easy to extend, to customize and to integrate with existing applications and processes. The platform provides desktop and mobile access to content delivers a simple but rich collaboration user experience and helps users to increase the value of their content. It has a large open community worldwide and is the preferred ECM platform for thousands of users within private, academic and business environments.
The main features of Alfresco are summarized in the following list (Alfresco.com, 2016), (Alfresco White Paper Series, 2008), (Technology Service Group, 2015):
• Document Management
• Collaboration Possibility
• Web Content Management
• Records Management
68
• Image Management
• Lucene Search
• Robust content repository
• Productivity App integration (including Microsoft Office and Google Docs)
• Available Add-‐Ons
• Hybrid Cloud
• Rigorously tested and certified against multiple OS, Database and application servers (including Oracle and Microsoft SQL)
• Customization possibility
Possible clients features are
• Alfresco Mobile apps for iOS and Android (including SDKs)
• Mobile device content encryption
Moreover, Alfresco offers support for additional modules like
• DOD5015.02 certified Records Management
• Alfresco Media Management for enhanced digital Asset management (DAM)
• Content Encryption
• Integrated Analytics and reporting
• Connectors for Amazon S3 and EMC Centera
• Alfresco Document Transformation Server
• Alfresco Media Transformation Server
• Alfresco Index Server
• Microsoft Outlook add-‐in
Depending on the application scenario of the user, Alfresco offers three types of usage, each with its own licensing schema (Alfresco.com, 2016), (Alfresco White Paper Series, 2008).
69
Table 3 -‐ Alfresco ECM Systems
Alfresco One
High availability, highly customizable ECM with simplified administration
Hybrid Cloud ECM with selective content-‐sync to the included SaaS Alfresco in the Cloud
Wide range of modules and add-‐ons including content encryption, records management, analytics and media management
License: Commercial
Alfresco in the Cloud
Supports secure external team collaboration
Full mobile access and workflow for document review and approval
No on-‐premises installation required
Well suited for smaller teams with multiple offices or branches that doesn’t want to manage servers and don’t require the full customization, extra modules or integrations offered by Alfresco One.
License: Commercial
Alfresco Community
Intended for developers
Open Source platform for community-‐driven development and contributions
Research vehicle for new features
Use in production only if resources exist to fully self-‐support
License: LGPLv3
Although Alfresco was not designed specifically as a software system for social innovation originally, it can be customized and used for social innovation concerns, since it comes with an appropriate infrastructure and needed functionalities and add-‐ons for document and records management, project management, website hosting, search, workflow management, user and role management and social collaboration features (blogs, wiki, discussion forum, etc.). One example of Alfresco’s add-‐ons is to let users to work collaboratively on documents through the integration of open-‐source extensions like Etherpad. A
70
possible drawback of combining Alfresco and Social Innovation concerns might be -‐ like in wiki systems -‐ the general character of Alfresco, i.e. end-‐users have to set up and configure all needed add-‐ons, plugins etc. and to define social innovation specifics, site structures and roles and users themselves based on the available Alfresco support and documentation, which might require a lot of both time and money.
Microsoft Sharepoint Microsoft Sharepoint is an open and commercial Enterprise Content Management (ECM) web platform, which focuses on the functional areas of sites, communities, content, search, composites and insights. Sharepoint covers there the following application ranges (Grobmannschwarz, 2016), (Microsoft Product Support, 2016), (Microsoft Support, 2016), (Figure, 2015), (Computerwoche, 2013):
• Collaboration, e.g. management and administration of projects or task coordination
• Social Networks, e.g. for personal websites, team websites, discussions and blogs
• Intranet portals
• Content-‐Management with document management functionalities, content administration, metadata and a user-‐adapted search
• Business applications
Users of Sharepoint can use it as a secured place for saving, structuring and releasing and accessing information from almost every terminal device. The main features of Sharepoint are as follows:
• Share documents
• Social feeds via the social network Yammer
• Groups and communities
• Single location for teams to organize content, share ideas and manage projects
• Task management
• Site mailbox
• Microsoft OneDrive for Business
• Search functionality for knowledge, people, information and data
71
• Sharepoint AppStore
• Possibility to built Websites without any Sharepoint knowledge
• Upgrading servers without impacting users (Simplified Upgrade)
• Optimized Servers for minimal use of resources
• eDicovery across sites, mails and IM
The current version of Microsoft Sharepoint 2013 holds the main investments for cloud readiness, social collaboration, mobile devices and web content management in different Sharepoint editions available on the market at the moment. Depending on the user requirements and needs, Sharepoint 2013 comes with several editions, each with its own licensing schema. The following table only holds the main shared functionalities of each edition, a full comparison of all Sharepoint 2013 features per edition can be found under http://blog.blksthl.com/2013/01/14/sharepoint-‐2013-‐feature-‐comparison-‐chart-‐all-‐editions/ and
http://www.grobmanschwarz.de/sharepoint/sharepoint-‐editionen (in German) for further reading.
Table 4 -‐ Microsoft Sharepoint 2013 Editions (Grobmannschwarz, 2016), (Microsoft Product Support, 2016)
SharePoint Foundation 2013
• Contains all basic functionalities and benefits of SharePoint Servers 2013
• Integrated full-‐text search in MS Office-‐documents
• Detailed management of user rights • Overview of all appointments, tasks and
documents • Simplified administration of team
collaboration • App Store • Management of access rights • Business Connectivity Services • SharePoint Designer • Lync und Exchange Connection • Webparts • Workflows • License: free
72
SharePoint Server 2013
Standard Edition
• Branding • Business Connectivity Services • Business Intelligence • Records Management and Compliance • Identity management • Mobile devices • Search and find • Social computing • Upgrade • Web Content Management • License: commercial
SharePoint Server 2013
Enterprise Edition
• Extended version of ü SharePoint Server 2013 Standard Edition
• Enterprise Edition only features like e.g. ü Access Services ü Custom Site Definitions ü Custom Site Provisioning ü Analytics Platform ü eDiscovery ü Video Search
Sharepoint Online ü Usable as a ü part of Microsoft Office365 ü standalone application in the cloud
ü License: commercial per user
MyIdeaWorks2 -‐ Sharepoint App Especially in the context of social innovation based software, the company myTeamWorks is specialized to offer social applications, which natively extend Microsoft Sharepoint 2010 and 2013 and enable Business Social Collaboration capabilities across the Enterprise. Especially their product MyIdeaWorks as an Intranet based social innovation APP, that supports solving enterprise strategic challenges or simply generate and brainstorm ideas based on the motivation and experience of company employees and partners. Basic features of MyIdeaWorks are in the blocks of Social Ideation, Social Reputation, Ideas Federation and Ideation reporting. MyIdeaWorks allows users the following:
2 http://www.myteamworks.com/TW/products/myIdeaWorks/Pages/features.aspx
73
• Sharing of ideas, individual and corporate challenges with participating employees, whereas ideas get voted and addressed
• Motivation of users within the organization to contribute to the innovation process and avoid ideas to get lost or overlooked
• Mapping of most promising ideas to specific organizational strategies and undertake offline exercises (funding, risks, resources, etc.)
• Recognize colleagues’ contributions to propose and support ideas by gamification with rankings
Possible drawbacks might be the proprietary character of this Sharepoint application and the need to acquire commercial licenses to use it.
4.5 Summary of the knowledge generation and management platforms
Based on the presented ICT solutions for the generation and management of knowledge it can be concluded, that any of these tools could be used as a basis for the construction of the SOCRATIC methodology and platform e.g. for collaboration in knowledge generation and management in the different social innovation life–cycle steps. Basically all of the presented software solutions provide functionalities for the generation and the management of knowledge and are extendable e.g. by Addons, etc. Nevertheless, different editions in terms of license cost, usability and feature range exist for each of these ICT solutions, which can be customized and configured separately. Due to the fact, that these solutions were originally not designed and developed specifically for Social Innovation purposes, it might require extensive efforts to set up, configure and adapt these software solutions to the Social Innovation domain. Also, adaptability and extensibility of each of the solution might be limited having in mind licensing schemas of the ICT vendors’ solution and or communities’ support.
74
5 Extreme Factories Platform The elaborated system of the ExtremeFactories System is comprised by:
• Service platform with the following groups of services
o Innovation Management Services: Innovation Inception Services, Prioritisation, Services, Implementation Services, and Follow-‐up Services, each composed of several tools, realised as combination of specific external solutions and/or platform internal solutions
o Collaboration Supporting Services which include Virtual Collaborative Space, Team Composition, and Knowledge Provision Services as well as Security and User Management Services.
• General Run-‐time Infrastructure, comprising Service Execution Environment, Security Services and External Systems Integration Services.
• Common Repository
The Extreme Factories platform addresses already the functionalities listed in 4.3.1 Platforms Characteristics, which are common in the tested CAPS platforms regarding Social Innovation.
Table 5 -‐ comparison shows how the CAPS features are addressed in Extreme Factories
CAPS Feature Extreme Factories Feature(s)
Matching Support of tagging/labeling of ideas
Idea/Challenge mapping Linking and presenting ideas and campaigns Full-‐text, semantic search of ideas, campaigns, projects, linking ideas or challenges within the platform with outside world
Idea Organization support Idea voting, Commenting/discussion feature Moderation of discussions, Filtering of ideas and campaigns
Engagement support Notification system (invitations to campaigns, notifications of new ideas, comments, etc.), Basic integration with LinkedIn -‐ login with LinkedIn
75
CAPS Feature Extreme Factories Feature(s)
account and import of LinkedIn profile information
Scope Open scope (= open for all platform users) Network scope, Staff scope (= group)
Integrated tools Integrated Project Management Module, REST API to interface with external tools
Open source Not open source, but possibility to reuse parts, which can be released as open-‐source
5.1 Inception Services Innovation Campaign A campaign in ExtremeFactories represents the “topic” to which related ideas can be proposed by the platform users in the beginning of the inception phase of the innovation process. Thus, a campaign holds all suggested ideas related to a certain subject. In order to manage campaigns, company managers are able to create, edit, delete, copy and start/stop a campaign, whereas each campaign has its own start and end dates on the ExtremeFactories platform. Basic users can list, view, search and filter campaigns.
Within the list of campaigns (see Figure 10), the currently logged in user can see all on-‐going campaigns, according to his/her currently assigned role. For every campaign there is a quick overview showing its title, its creator as well as its due date. Due date in this case means that no more commenting and posting of ideas will be allowed by any user after this specific date is reached. Moreover, campaigns that reached their due date are marked as complete as far as inception phase is concerned and are moved onto the next phase of innovation (i.e. prioritisation). The status of a campaign is also clearly displayed by the breadcrumb like indicator and the name of the current phase of innovation below. Clicking the name of the campaign redirects the user to the current step in the innovation process (i.e. Inception, Prioritisation, Implementation or Follow Up), whereas clicking on a breadcrumb entry on the status indicator redirects the user to the desired phase.
76
Figure 10 -‐ List of campaigns (from Manager or Admin point of view) in ExtremeFactories
Posting and Commenting Whenever a campaign is active and the currently logged in user is part of the scope of that campaign (or is administrator of the platform or manager of the company this campaign belongs to) ideas and comments can be posted within that campaign.
Figure 11 -‐ Scoping a campaign to company staff
Scope In order for normal users (non-‐managers and non-‐administrators) to participate in campaigns by posting ideas, comments and being able to vote, that user has to be part of the scope of a campaign. Whenever a new campaign is about to be started, setting the scope is required. A scope is only set
77
automatically if a new campaign is created and the “immediately start this campaign” option is turned on (this would set the scope to 1a, see list below) otherwise this has to be done prior to starting a campaign. A campaign can have one out of three different basic scopes, where every scope itself provides other options, which are (see Figure 11):
1. Staff Scope
a. All company employees
b. Selected departments
c. Selected employees
2. Network Scope
a. All members of the company network
b. Selected types of members of the company network
c. Selected members of the company network
3. Open Scope
5.2 Prioritisation Services Once the campaign reaches its deadline then all the ideas are moved to the prioritisation admin dashboard as shown in the following Figure 12.
Figure 12 -‐ Prioritisation Admin Dashboard
Configuration The Admin/Manager can then configure the prioritisation process by choosing a prioritisation approach, specifying who should participate and
78
setting START and END date of the prioritisation on the prioritisation configuration screen.
Figure 13 -‐ Idea analytics
Voting & Prioritisation Once the admin/manager user has configured the prioritisation process, then the ideas will be displayed on other participants' dashboards for review. The ExtremeFactories platform offers flexibility to launch one or more ideas to the prioritisation phase and lets the users vote with a rating scale going from 1 to 5. Once the prioritisation method has been selected, the user can evaluate the idea by means of the prioritisation matrix and after the voting process carried through the prioritisation phase is finished, the summary of the idea assessment are available under the Idea Analytics
After the voting process is finished, the prioritised ideas will appear under the homonym tab. The Prioritised Ideas tab shows the report on the grades scored by the idea in the following Figure 14.
79
Figure 14 -‐ Prioritised Ideas Tab
5.3 Implementation Services Once the idea(s) has (have) been prioritized, it enters the implementation phase, where project can be created and managed. The following figure shows the screenshot of project management where administrators can create a new project, delete/modify existing ones, start or stop the project amongst other managerial tasks.
Figure 15 -‐ Implementation Dashboard
After creating a new project by the user different tasks can be added to the project through the screens shown.
80
Figure 16 -‐ Create New Project
Figure 17 -‐ Create New Task in Project
5.4 Follow-‐up Services Once an implementation process finishes, its state changes to Follow-‐up. All projects with this state are displayed on list as shown in the following Figure 18.
Figure 18 -‐ List of project with Follow-‐up state
On this page, the currently logged in user can see projects within the follow-‐-‐up stage according to his/her company and assigned role, which will determine the number of available interactions to be shown within the Action button. The Admin/Manager can configure a set of KPIs to assess the success of the implementation of the project. As is shown in the following figure, the “Add KPI” option is available for the Admin/Manager role and allows them the KPIs creation which requires a short description, a team to be questioned, optionally a to be
81
indicated as example, expected value and its measure unit. All created KPIs are displayed per project and depicted in terms of name with description, obtained value and check to mark KPI as answered which indicates definitive value. Users that were assigned to the Poll Team are allowed to answer the KPI and their response value is show in obtained column.
Figure 19 -‐ List of KPIs for project
5.5 ExtremeFactories Ontology The following figure represents an excerpt of the complete Extreme Factories ontology that is focused on the main entities used during the inception and prioritization phases of the innovation process: Campaign, Idea, Tag, and different Prioritization Configuration settings.
82
Figure 20 -‐ ExtremeFactories Ontology – Excerpt
The table below focuses on the entities used on the ExtremeFactories platform.
Table 6-‐ Main entities in the ExtremeFactories ontology with their description
Object Description/comment
User/Company-‐related entities
User Describes personnel of a business unit using the ExtremeFactories platform, including information about their level of participation in innovation activities. Users that contribute substantially to innovation in the organization will be marked as “innovators”.
User Role Describes the user’s role and level of access to the ExtremeFactories platform defined through User Rights (see below).
Innovation-‐related entities
Innovation Context
Defines a company’s current status/capabilities with regard to innovation, defined through: -‐ Organizational Policies and Practices -‐ Implementation Climate
83
Object Description/comment
-‐ Management Support -‐ Managerial Patience -‐ Learning Orientation and -‐ Financial Resources Availability
Innovation Strategy
Medium to long-‐term strategy established by the management of a company comprising several aspects of the company such as training, working context or financial resources. The Innovation Strategy must establish a number of measurable Innovation Objectives. Innovation Strategy baseline is identified and defined through the (self-‐assessed) Innovation Context.
Innovation Objective
Measurable objective that will comprise the performance of a number of activities. The completion of the objectives will determine the success or failure of the Innovation Strategy. An Innovation Objective may be related to one or more Performance Indicators, which specify the goals of this objective.
Campaign Represents an innovation project or a problem, which should be resolved through innovation. The campaign describes the problem or overall goal of the innovation project and is used to aggregate data related to the problem/innovation project during the first two steps of the innovation process (inception and prioritisation phase), such as the collected ideas, their ratings and the initial solution concept(s).
Idea Any idea or suggestion to develop or improve design, production, marketing or management of a product or service. An idea may be related to a given innovation project / problem (Campaign) or independent.
Category Represents the category of the idea (e.g. design, production, marketing, management, etc.)
Selected ideas Represents the ideas chosen for implementation
Rejected Ideas Represents discarded ideas (no longer active)
Weak Ideas Represents poorly presented ideas that needs further improvement in order to be considered for selection.
Rating Represents the “value” of an innovation idea, giving an indication of its
84
Object Description/comment
potential impact if successfully implemented.
Performance Indicator
Represents a measurable value to assess the success of an innovation project/implemented idea, e.g. productivity, profitability, environmental indicators, etc.
Success Stories Represents an innovation project that has successfully progressed through the decision making process and has been successfully implemented by the company or by another organisation.
Collaboration-‐related entities
Team/Discussion Group
Represents a formal group of users collaborating on a specific idea evaluation, selection or implementation. Includes information about the type of Team/Discussion Group (e.g. ideas gathering discussion group, prioritisation discussion group, team implementing an innovation, etc.) as well as the status of a Team/Discussion Group (e.g. active, closed, etc.).
Expertise Represents a user’s or an Innovation team’s area of capability: knowledge, skills and/or competence.
Project-‐related entities
Innovation Project Represents the project originating from a selected idea (an idea that has been chosen to be implemented). The Innovation Project can be divided into tasks and have staff members assigned to it. Successful implementation of Innovation Projects may lead to the fulfilment of a specific Innovation Objective. Successful as well as failed Innovation Projects will be introduced into the repository of Innovation Projects for re-‐use as guidelines (Dos and Don’ts) in future Innovation Projects.
Task Describes a given activity with clearly defined objective in evaluating, selecting or implementing an idea within an innovation project. Includes information about responsibilities, deadlines, predecessor and successor or parallel tasks, etc. A task can be broken down into smaller Actions.
85
6 Conclusion After reviewing the literature, we have achieved a common understanding of Social Innovation, its concepts and its process. This is an important result that serves as a first basis for defining the focus of SOCRATIC.
Several tools and projects have been reviewed as part of the investigation of ICT facilitators towards the Innovation process. We have identified approaches that can be exploited in the definition of the Socratic platforms and components that might be reused/integrated in the definition of the Socratic platform. However, we leave this decision to be taken at a later stage after the requirements have been captured from the users in D1.3.
Topic Gaps identified in the State-‐of-‐the-‐Art
Social Innovation
Innovation methodologies are mainly focused on inception and going-‐to-‐market stages. There are no fully formed, consolidated SI methodologies, i.e. for supporting innovation processes driven by societal issues.
A comprehensive Social Innovation methodology supporting a combination of sustainability areas and linking to the Global Sustainability Goals defined by the UN is not available yet.
CAPS
The presented and tested CAPS projects and platforms have only narrow focus on awareness and on the first step of the SI process.
A single CAPS project does not combine several different sustainability areas at the same time.
None of the first funded CAPS projects address the collective creation of novel innovative solutions towards solving problems.
Knowledge and Document
Management
All presented tools are of a general purpose character and do have no or limited SI support per default (as they were not specifically developed for SI purposes originally)
SI Addons are available on the market for only a few of the presented tools, paired with proprietary and or commercial license limitations
Due to the general character of the presented solutions, there is no or limited
86
Table 7 -‐ Overview of identified gaps and limitations of previous approaches
The testing of different tools make us confident that the Extreme Factories platform is a good baseline for Socratic. Many of the tools that were tested are immature, some unstable. The Extreme Factories platform outperforms the tested tools in terms of ideation support characteristics and it supports a substantial part of the social Innovation process.
The CAPS projects previously funded (and soon being completed) had strong focus on creating awareness and engaging participants. This is something that is not yet supported by Extreme Factories and can be exploited. Some of these CAPS projects also provide support for analysing data and identifying relationships. This is also relevant when extending Extreme Factories. Such features are increasingly important when a large group of participants collaborate and produce content. None of the projects address the participants of the platforms as creators of a novel product that solve social problems. They rather focus on collecting data or engaging participants to make use of solutions provided by the project. Extreme Factories has support, although yet not mature, for the steps after ideation. This could be further developed in SOCRATIC. However as the project will only last for two years, it is a challenge to conduct the evaluation of the full innovation process.
Finally, to conclude this deliverable, the following table presents a summary of the gaps and limitations.
methodological support regarding the Social Innovation process
Extreme Factories
The existing platform can be used as a baseline, but there is the potential for optimizations for the case of Socratic in terms of e.g. creating awareness about problems, support for engaging people, support for keeping people engaged
Extreme Factories functionalities could be adapted and extended to Socratics’ needs in terms of
• Support of tagging/labelling of user’s skills or interests
• Recommendation of ideas or users based on tag compatibility
• Gamification (reward system)
• Additional integration of social media
• Integration with external tools
87
7 Bibliography Alfresco White Paper Series, Total Cost of Ownership for Enterprise Content Management, 2008, [Online] Available at: http://www.aiim.org/pdfdocuments/36717.pdf, [Accessed 11 02 2016] Alfresco, Alfresco.com, [Online] Available at: https://www.alfresco.com/products/enterprise-‐content-‐management, [Accessed 19 02 2016] Anderson, Tara, Andrew Curtis, and Claudia Wittig. "Definition and Theory in Social Innovation." (2015). Arniani, M., Badii, A., De Liddo, A., Georgi, S., Passani, A., Piccolo, L.S.G., and Teli, M. 2014. Collective Awareness Platform for Sustainability and Social Innovation: An Introduction. Book Sprints for ICT Research. Available at (accessed February 2016): http://booksprints-‐for-‐ict-‐research.eu/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/07/BS5-‐CAPS-‐FIN-‐003.pdf Atlassian, C., 2015. Atlassian Confluence. [Online] Available at: https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence, [Accessed 11 02 2016] Baker K.A. 2002. Managing Science as a Public Good: Overseeing Publicly Funded Science, Chapter 14, Office of Planning and Analysis, USA Air Force. Buffa, M., 2008. SweetWiki: A semantic wiki. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web. Burns, Tom and George M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Caulier-‐Grice, J, Davies, A, Patrick, R, Norman, W, Defining Social Innovation. A deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, European Commission, DG Research, Brussels, 2012 Chesbrough, Henry William. 2003. Open Innovation: The new imperative for
88
creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, C. M. 1997. The Innovator’s Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Cohen, W. M. and D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35:128-‐152. Computerwoche Magazine, 2013. Wie gut ist Sharepoint 2013. [Online] in German Available at: http://www.computerwoche.de/a/wie-‐gut-‐ist-‐microsoft-‐sharepoint-‐2013,2520930 [Accessed 23 02 2016]. Cunningham W., B. K., 1987. Using Pattern Languages for Object-‐Oriented Programs. OOPSLA, Website (Requested at 03/05/2015) http://c2.com/doc/oopsla87.html Davis, J., 2003. Towards the semantic web -‐ Ontology-‐driven Knowledge Management. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons LTD.. Dees, G. Haas, P. & Haas, M. (1998). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. Dourish, P. and Bellotti, V. 1992. Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces. In: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-‐Supported Cooperative Work. DOI: 10.1145/143457.143468 Drucker, Peter F. 2002, “The discipline of innovation. Havard Business Review 80 (8): 85-‐108. Reprint R0208F. European Commission. Directorate-‐General for Regional Policy. 2013. Guide to Social Innovation. Figura M., G. D., 2015. Die Qual der Wiki-‐Wahl. Wikis für Wissensmanagement in Organisationen. [Online] Available at: https://www.pumacy.de/publikationen/studien/wikis-‐fuer-‐wissensmanagement/ [Accessed 11 02 2016]. Franz, Hans-‐Werner, Josef Hochgerner, and Jürgen Howaldt. 2012. Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil
89
Society. Springer Science & Business Media. Gray, Dave, Sunni Brown, and James Macanufo. 2010. Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers. “O’Reilly Media, Inc.” Grobmannschwarz, 2016. Sharepoint Editionsvergleich. [Online] in German Available at: http://www.grobmanschwarz.de/Medien/SharePoint/SharePoint%20Editionsvergleich.pdf [Accessed 23 02 2016]. Hamel, Gary and C. K. Prahalad. 1994. Competing for the Future. Harvard Business Review (July-‐August):122-‐28. Hamel, Gary. 1996. Strategy as Revolution. Harvard Business Review (July-‐August):69-‐82. Hamel, Gary. 2000. Leading the Revolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hohmann, Luke. 2006. Innovation Games: Creating Breakthrough Products Through Collaborative Play. Pearson Education. Hull, F.M., and J. Hage. 1982. Organizing for Innovation: Beyond the Burns and Stalker’s Organic Type. Sociology 16(4):564-‐577. Kanter, R. M. 1988. When a Thousand Flowers Bloom: Structural, Collective, and Social Conditions for Innovation in Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10:169-‐211. Krötzsch, M., 2006. Semantic Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 585-‐594. Martinelli, Flavia, and Martinelli Flavia. 2012. “Social Innovation or Social Exclusion? Innovating Social Services in the Context of a Retrenching Welfare State.” In Challenge Social Innovation, 169–80. MediaWiki, 2003. MediaWiki. [Online] Available at: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki [Accessed 11 02 2016].
90
Microsoft Product Support, 2016. Sharepoint 2013 Overview and features. [Online] Available at: https://products.office.com/en-‐us/sharepoint/sharepoint-‐2013-‐overview-‐collaboration-‐software-‐features [Accessed 23 02 2016]. Microsoft Support, 2016. Was ist Sharepoint 2013. [Online] in German Available at: https://support.office.com/de-‐de/article/Was-‐ist-‐SharePoint-‐97b915e6-‐651b-‐43b2-‐827d-‐fb25777f446f [Accessed 23 02 2016]. Mulgan, Geoff. 2006. “The Process of Social Innovation.” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization 1 (2): 145–62. Murray, Robin, Julie Caulier-‐Grice, and Geoff Mulgan. The open book of social innovation. London: National endowment for science, technology and the art, 2010. Phills, James A., Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale T. Miller. "Rediscovering social innovation." Stanford Social Innovation Review 6, no. 4 (2008): 34-‐43. Schaffert, S., 2006. IkeWiki: A SemanticWiki for Collaborative Knowledge Management. 15th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises. Schmalz, J. S., 2007. Zwischen Kooperation und Kollaboration, zwischen Hierarchie und Heterarchie. Organisationsprinzipien und -‐strukturen von Wikis. kommunikation@gesellschaft. SemanticMediaWiki, 2006. Semantic MediaWiki. [Online] Available at: https://semantic-‐mediawiki.org/ [Accessed 11 02 2016]. Sestini, F..2012. Collective Awareness Platforms: Engines for Sustainability and Ethics. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. DOI: 10.1109/MTS.2012.2225457 Technology Service Group (TSG) Blog, SharePoint and Alfresco Comparison Whitepaper, [Online] Available at: http://blog.tsgrp.com/2015/08/20/sharepoint-‐and-‐alfresco-‐comparison-‐whitepaper-‐now-‐available/, [Accessed 11 02 2016] TWiki, 2007. TWiki. [Online] Available at: http://twiki.org/ [Accessed 11 02 2016]
91
WeheWehe, 2015. Hawaiian Online Dictionary. [Online] Available at: http://wehewehe.org/ [Accessed 11 02 2016]. Westley, F. & Antadze, N. (2010). Making a Difference: Strategies for Scaling Social Innovation for Greater Impact. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 15(2).
92
8 Appendixes
8.1 The Agile Innovation Manifesto 1. The highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early involvement
in the Innovation Process and through the continuous delivery of value along the Innovation Process.
2. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage. Changing requirements (and priorities), even late in the Innovation Process, are welcome and should be accommodated.
3. Working concepts are delivered frequently along the Innovation Process – from a couple of weeks to a couple of months – with a preference for the shorter timescale, so they can be rapidly validated by third parties.
4. Key stakeholders of the company work together daily throughout the Innovation Process. Multidisciplinary collaboration is mandatory to succeed in the Innovation Process.
5. Motivated individuals should take part of the Innovation Process. The Innovation Process itself can be used to motivate unmotivated individuals. Create the environment they need, support them, trust them to get the job done and reward them.
6. Face-‐to-‐face collaboration with the rest of the team is great, especially among team members who belong to different disciplines. Technology, also, can be a very good ally for interfacing distributed and heterogeneous teams.
7. Validated working concepts are the primary measure of progress. Do you have an idea? Implement the concept and invite a group of people to validate it. This is applicable in all stages of innovation.
8. Innovation is not an individual process. A company where innovation has permeated the whole organization is able to apply innovation principles to daily tasks. Management, staff, customers and suppliers should be aware of this and naturally apply innovation principles in daily operations.
9. No matter the stage of innovation we are in, the team should pay continuous attention to technical excellence and good design. First things
93
first! Focus on essential items and get the non-‐essential ones away from your attention
10. The best ideas, architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-‐organizing teams.
11. At every stage of the Innovation Process, the team will analyse the results obtained and the effectiveness of the process. Then fine-‐tune and adjust what ever is necessary to improve the process.
8.2 Social innovation projects worldwide Besides the European projects funded under the CAPS initiative, there exist a number of projects worldwide that address societal problems through network effect, in line with CAPS. This annex includes the listed provided on the website for CAPS.
8.2.1 Creating awareness about sustainability impacts of consumer choices
• The Eatery: providing customised nutritional advice based on actual eating and sharing/comparing eating habits over social networks
• Opower: blending behavioural science and data analysis to use less electricity
• patientslikeme: for sharing medical experiences and problems among patients
• SPREAD: sustainable Lifestyles 2050
• EUREAPA: scenario modelling and policy assessment tool to understand the environmental consequences of consumption activities
• Nike+ FuelBand: tracks physical activity through a wearable accelerometer and syncs up with a motivational web and mobile experience
• Urban Eco Map: creates awareness to take eco-‐conscious decisions at local level
• Ecosearch: search portal supporting the environment
• Friends of the Earth: app based environmental shopping guide
94
8.2.2 Lending, exchanging, swapping and bartering at scale • COMMUNIA: Network for analysis and strategic policy discussion of the
public domain in the digital environment
• AIRBNB: Renting rooms or places from other people
• Freecycle: Grassroots and non-‐profit movement of people who are giving stuff for free
• J. Rifkin: Enabling a grid for distributed production and sharing of renewable energy
• Carma: Carpooling app for smartphones
• FundingCircle: Lending/borrowing money directly between people and businesses
• Zilok: Renting objects between professionals or individuals
• Thecube: Hiring workspace and desk space
• LetslinkUK: Exchange all kinds of goods and services
• Landshare: Connecting growers with people with land to share
8.2.3 Better decision making at personal or institutional levels • Safecast: Collecting data about radiation through individual devices
• NESTA Alliance for useful evidence: Embedding evidence in the decision making process
• Crowdmap: Collect and map information from cellphones, news and the web
• Localmind: Send questions and receive answers about what is going on—right now—at places you care about
• safer-‐streets: Allow people to upload pictures of accidents or report about them
• SocialSensor: Sensing user generated input for improved media discovery and experience
• EVERYAWARE: Enhance environmental awareness and promote behavioural change through social information technologies
• SENSEI: Integrating the physical with the digital world of the network of the future
95
8.2.4 Better policies or new models for economy, society and democracy
• United Nations Global Compact strategic policy initiative
• OECD Better Life Initiative
• 2050 Pathway simulator
• Personal Democracy Forum: How technology is changing politics
• Theyworkforyou: Monitoring the activity of UK politicians
• AVAAZ: Connecting citizens to drive sustainable political decisions
• planetaryskin: Developing risk and resource management decision services to address resource scarcity, land-‐water-‐food-‐energy-‐climate issues
8.2.5 Improving public services, urban environments, democracy, internet, based on open data
• Kickstarter: Open-‐source crowdfunding platform for startups
• Crowdcube: Crowdfunding community dedicated to business
• Evoke: Serious games to develop and refine ideas to change the world
• ICLEI: Local governments for sustainability
• SUNSET: Exploiting social networks to manage urban mobility in a sustainable manner
• WeKnowIt: Developing techniques for extracting and exploiting "Collective Intelligence"
• Code for America: Helps governments work better for everyone with the people and the power of the web
• Challenge.gov: Public and government can solve problems together
• Apps for Good: Award competition to create apps to change the world
• London datastore: Freeing London’s data
• Who owns my neighbourhood: Take responsibility for land, buildings and activities in your neighbourhood
• Social innovation camp UK: Putting together software developers and social innovators to solve a set of social problems
96
8.2.6 Doing things together, mindfully of privacy and inclusion needs
• Glancee: Discovers what friends or interests you have in common, combining Facebook and Wikipedia
• Diaspora: Distributed social network giving people ownership over their data
8.2.7 Providing key technology elements ensuring free access and connecting people
• Open Garden: Protocol optimizing communications between wireless devices
• Freedombox: Enabling private conversations online
• FrontlineSMS: Enabling instantaneous two-‐way communication on a large scale
• Arduino: Open-‐source electronics prototyping platform based on flexible, easy-‐to-‐use hardware and software
8.2.8 Studies, Conferences and Think-‐Tanks on ICT and sustainability
• Project CONSENT: Consumer Sentiment regarding Privacy of User Generated Content
• Informatics and Sustainability Research
• EcoSocial Forum: Platform for the ecosocial market economy
• IPTS report on Nudging Lifestyles
• FuturICT FET Flagship proposal
• SocioPatterns: Uncovering fundamental patterns in social dynamics and coordinated human activity
• Internet of Things European Research Cluster" (IERC)
• Fundamentals of Collective Adaptive Systems
• Greening Europe Forum of Friends of Europe