mpact social innovation
economic foundationempowering people
SIMPACTWPREPORTReport#T2.2
3rdSmall-scaleStakeholderExperimentDiscussionOutcomesBastianPELKAa,MonaMARKMANNa,AlessandroDESERTIb&FrancescaRIZZOb,c
a TUDortmund,sfsb PolitecnicodiMilanoc UniversityofBologna
August2016
The SIMPACT project receives funding from the European Union’s Seventh FrameworkProgramme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant
AgreementNo:613411.
SIMPACTSIMPACTisaresearchprojectfundedundertheEuropeanCommission’s7thFrameworkProgrammefrom 2014-2016 and is the acronym for «Boosting the Impact of SI in Europe through EconomicUnderpinnings».TheprojectconsortiumconsistsoftwelveEuropeanresearchinstitutionsandisledbytheInstituteforWorkandTechnologyoftheWestphalianUniversityGelsenkircheninGermany.LegalNoticeTheinformationandviewssetoutinthisreportarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheEuropeanCommission.DocumentProperties
ProjectAcronym SIMPACT
ProjectTitle BoostingtheImpactofSocialInnovationinEuropethroughEconomicUnderpinnings
Coordinator InstituteforWork&TechnologyofWestphalianUniversityGelsenkirchen
Deliverable T2.2Small-scaleStakeholderExperiment
Author(s) PELKA,Bastian,MonaMARKMANN,FrancescaRIZZO&AlessandroDESERTI
DocumentIdentifier FP7-SSH.2013.1.1-1-613411-SIMPACT–T2.2
WorkPackage WP2–SIBehaviourScenarios
Date 19thJuly2016
DisseminationLevel Notdisseminated–onlyforworkshopparticipantsandprojectmembers
DisseminationNature R–Report
DocumentStatus Final
TableofContents
1 FEEDBACKONSELECTEDEMPIRICALFINDINGS 11.1 Thesis:«TheExisting»ismostcrucialfor«TheNew»,butveryoftenNeglected 11.2 Thesis:When«TheInnovation»and«TheExisting»meet,
acrucialroleisplayedbyGatekeepers 21.3 Thesis:BricolageisatypicalWorkingAttitudeinSI 31.4 Thesis:ResourceScarcityistypicalinSI 41.5 Thesis:SIsareoftencharacterisedbycomplexLegalBodies
inalaterphaseofDevelopment 5
2 FEEDBACKONTHE«CONTEXTUNDERSTANDINGGUIDE» 62.1 UnderstandingtheEcosystemofSocialInnovation 62.2 RunningaSocialInnovation 7
3 FEEDBACKONTHE«BUSINESSTOOLBOX» 93.1 AccessibilityandLanguageComprehensibility 93.2 TargetsoftheToolbox 93.3 LogicoftheToolbox 103.4 GapsintheListofTools 10
ANNEX 11Aims,structureandmethodologyoftheworkshop 11AGENDAOFTHEEXPERIMENTWORKSHOP 13Listofparticipants 14Photosfromdiscussionresults 15Snapshots 22
|1
1 FEEDBACKONSELECTEDEMPIRICALFINDINGS
Theworkshopwas built on a discussion of selected SIMPACT research results.TUDOselectedthefivethesesfromSIMPACT’sempiricalresearchandaskedtheparticipantstorespondtothem.
1.1 Thesis:«TheExisting»ismostcrucialfor«TheNew»,butveryoftenNeglected
BACKGROUNDEXPLANATIONGIVENTOTHESTAKEHOLDERS
Our empirical findings illustrate that the occurrence, diffusion and sustainability of socialinnovationsdependtoagreatextentontheinnovation’sinvolvementwith“existingfactors”,meaning e.g. solutions, actor constellations, actor interests, system logics and pathdependencies.COMMENTSAdiscussionspunaroundthequestionofwhatactuallymakesaninnovation“new”:Thestakeholdersarguedthatmuchofwhatisseentodayasa“socialinnovation”isalongestablishedsocialpracticeandhasonlyminimalaspectsofinnovation.Thesecouldbe:anewtechnologyemployed,anewtargetgrouporanewsectortowhichanexistingpracticeistransferred.Sometimes“old”practicesareaddressing“new”services(“what?”),areofferedbynewproviders(“who?”)oraredeliveredbynewmeans(“how?”).Thecrucialquestionfromthestakeholders’pointofviewisnot“what is new?”, but “what works?”. In this regard, the stakeholders argue thatresearch,economyandpolicyseemtofavor“thenew”to“theexisting”forthesakeoftheinnovation,whilevulnerablepeople’sperspectiveismuchmoreontheaddedvalueintermsofimprovementoflivingconditions.Thestakeholdersalsoidentifieda“longterm”perspective(ofexistingorganisationslookingforvulnerablepeople)clashingonthe“shortterm”perspectiveoforganisationssupportinginnovationforthesakeofitself.CONCLUSION
In the understanding of stakeholders – many of them representing establishedorganisationsinthefieldofcareforvulnerablepeople–“thenew”doesnothaveavalue in itself, but is rather seen as a challenge to established (and working)practices.Thisperspectiveisreasoningamorescepticalviewonsocialinnovationasa“shorttermorientedtrend”.Withthisbackground,thethesisisaccepted–therelevanceof“theexisting”iscrucialforinnovations.
Approach
2|
1.2 Thesis:When«TheInnovation»and«TheExisting»meet,acrucialroleisplayedbyGatekeepers
BACKGROUNDEXPLANATIONGIVENTOTHESTAKEHOLDERS
Theseareprotectingsystems(e.g.thehealthsystemortheeducationsystem)andcangrantaccesstorecognition,audienceandbudgets–forexamplebythemeansofnorms,qualitydefinitions,standards,discourseandplatformcontrolorresourceallocation.SIactorsshouldidentifysuchgatekeepersandtheirinherentlogicsatanearlystage.COMMENTS
Thediscussiononthisthesisproducedtwostrandsofinsights:
1. Thenotionofwhocouldfunctionasagatekeeperiswidened:Thestakeholderspointedout thatcivilandpublicservants, stakeholdersofvulnerablepeopleand intermediaries (such as teachers and other) can be strong gatekeepers.Further research isneeded to identify suchgatekeepersand reflecton theirveryroles.
2. Thegeneralthesiswasverymuchacceptedbythestakeholders.Furthermore,adiscussionspunaroundinstrumentsthatareusedbygatekeepersinorderto“keeptheirgates”.Typicalinstrumentsinclude:
a. Budgetallocation
b. Loyalitychains
c. Recognition (formal and informal) of certificates, outcomes andactivitiese.g.
d. Accesstopoliticalpower
e. Awarenessraisingmechanisms(anddenyingaccesstothem)
f. Over-applicationofregulation(asabarrier)CONCLUSION
Thestrongroleofgatekeepersisunderlinedbythestakeholders.Butthisrevealeddifferentactorsthatcouldfunctionasgatekeepersanddifferenttoolsthatareusedbythem.Inconclusion,itisimportanttonotethatagatekeepercanbeasupportingorhinderingfactorbyusingthesameinstrument.Forexample,formalrecognitioncanbeusedtosupportaninnovation,butalsotobanitfromaccessingthemarket.Thisambivalentfunctionofgatekeepingtoolsagainemphasizesthestrongroleofindividualgatekeepers.
|3
1.3 Thesis:BricolageisatypicalWorkingAttitudeinSI
BACKGROUNDEXPLANATIONGIVENTOTHESTAKEHOLDERS
SIsoftenfailduetoalackofmanagementcompetencesorprofessionalknowledgeregardingtherespectivesystems.Theyarecharacterizedbyawayoffunctioningtheauthorsdo,withregardtoLevi-Strauss,refertoas“bricolage”andwhichischaracterizedbyitsincrementaldevelopmentprocess.COMMENTS
Thegeneralhypothesisregardstothelackofmanagementapproachesoftenbeingapplied in SIs and thus an incremental development process characterizedby aconductbasedon“trialanderror”.Newideasoftencannotbedevelopedfullyrationally.ThismightapplytoSIs,butalso in the context of other pressingneeds. In SIs, the bricolage attitude canbeascribed to the fact that social innovators are often thinking and acting out of“passion” and are re-evaluating the outcomes of their action at a later stage ofdevelopment.Anotherreasonmightbefoundinthemanagementconduct,whichincludesthecoordinationofmanydifferentindividualswithdifferentbackgroundsandinterests,whichimpedesastructuredplanning.However,itisassumedthatbythebricolageattitudeandresultingconduct,anincrementaldevelopmentistakingplace,whichmightresultinastructuringprocessleadingtotheprofessionalizationofmanagementconductandthustoamorestructuredapproach,e.g.inplanning,implementation and evaluation. A strong focus also lies on the relation to itsecosystem, especially the public sector, which is traditionally regarded as riskaverse, however the SI is dependent on its support (see “gatekeepers”). Theconnected political imperative is often based on the duration of the legislativeperiod,meaningthatthepoliticalsystemoftenhasastrongerfocusonshort-termresults whereas the social innovator is aiming for his/her innovation’ssustainability.Achangeofperspective isappliedto turnthepublicsector intoasupportingseedbedforSI,ratherthanahinderingfactor.Supportshouldbegivento social innovators, possibly in the form of a facilitating entity between theinnovatorandthepublicsector.CONCLUSION
The“bricolage”attitudeofSIcanbeseeninconjunctionwiththeinsightsontherelationbetween“theexisting”and“theinnovation.”Forthosecontributingtothefunctionofgatekeepers,thebricolageattitudecanbeplacedonadevelopmentpathof social enterprises: The more a social enterprise is connected to establishedactorsandproceduresoftheirecosystem,themoreitseemstoadopttheirworking
4|
schemes.Managementapproachesarenotexplicitelyforcedintosocialentreprises,butseemtobecomeafeatureoftheprocessofexchangebetweentheinnovationandtheexistingsystems.
1.4 Thesis:ResourceScarcityistypicalinSI
BACKGROUNDEXPLANATIONGIVENTOTHESTAKEHOLDERS
Thisrefersespeciallyto(financial)capitalbutalsotoknowledgeandland.“Work”incontrastis to a great extent contributed by volunteers which is in fact observable as “hyper-efficiency”:measuredagainstthe(verysmall)economicinput,highimpactisachievedCOMMENTS
Thehypothesiswasdiscussedinregardtovolunteerworkwhichwasanemphasiswhendescribingtheaspectof“hyperefficiency”.Thereisastrongconnectiontothe “bricolage” hypothesis: Due to the strong dependency on volunteers whichnormallydonotfollowthesamecodeofconductasregularemployees,strategicplanningisexacerbatedandthus,resultsaredifficulttopredict.Thishampersalsotheadaptabilitytochange,e.g.when“keyplayers”inaSIareleavingandthelosscannotbefullycompensated.Thus,resourcesshouldbediversifiedtoensuretheSI’ssustainability.However,itispointedout,thatthisthesisisbasedontheassumptionofvolunteerworkas“happyvolunteering”,thismeansthatnon-skilledvolunteersareworkingonlyonthebasisoftheirhighmotivationforthesubject.Thiskindofvolunteeringdoesindeedrequirejustaverysmalleconomicinput.Incontrast,veryoftensomekind of “professional volunteering” is deployed which requires a quite highfinancialinvestment,e.g.intheformofaspecializedtrainingandthebuild-upandmaintenance of a support network. This approachmay ensure a higher level ofsustainabilitybutatthesametimealsoahigherlevelofpersonalandinterpersonalaswellasfinancialeffortsotheconjunctureof“hyperefficiency”isnotapplicableoncompulsioninthiscase.CONCLUSION
Thestakeholdersagreetothegeneralresourcescarcityofsocialservices,butalsopointtoadifferentiatedpicture:Volunteersarenot“forfree”forasocialenterprise,butareconnected tospecific investments (e.g. time, training).Socialenterprisesareusingotherresourcesthanforprofitenterprises.
|5
1.5 Thesis:SIsareoftencharacterisedbycomplexLegalBodiesinalaterphaseofDevelopment
BACKGROUNDEXPLANATIONGIVENTOTHESTAKEHOLDERS
WefoundinourcasesnumerousexamplesofcharitableLLCs,cooperatives,associations(inallEuropeanvarieties)andothernon-profitlegalforms,connectedwithfor-profitforms.COMMENTS
Editorial change: The previous thesis was, in its exact wording, “SIs are oftencharacterized by complex structures”. The additional, “in a later phase ofdevelopment”,referstothecircumstancethatinitsstageofemergence,theSIisforcedtochoosearather“simple”legalformand,asaconsequence,hastoalignitsactivitiesinaccordancewiththerequirementsofthechosenlegalform.Thechoiceofthelegalformmayalsoconstituteaconflictbetweentheinnovator’sideologicalaims and pragmatic implications, e.g. regarding issues of ownership, profit andpublicperception.Onlylater,afteradevelopmenttoacertainstage,doesSIhavethecapabilitiestocreateacomplexstructureoflegalbodies,sometimesasanurgeto apply to standards set by the ecosystem. Often, there is the goal to reinvestprofits in the SI to ensure its sustainability, which is often achieved by hybridstructures. Nevertheless, the innovator is dependent on the existing legalframework,whichrequiresanadaptationofhis/herchoiceofthestructureoflegalbodiestoexistingnormsandregulations.Viceversa,theecosystemisreferringtoexistingstructuresandpracticesandassociatedneedswhendevelopingnewlegalforms.CONCLUSION
Again,theseinsightscanbelinkedtothefindingsofa“pathwaytoestablishment”,asdescribedintheconclusionabove:Inlaterphasesofdevelopment,SIsseemtodifferentiatetheirbodiesandactionsinordertobettercomplytotheecosystems’needs.
6|
2 FEEDBACKONTHE«CONTEXTUNDERSTANDINGGUIDE»
Intheseconddiscussionround,theparticipantsweregivingfeedbackonthe“Context Understanding Guide”, a self-reflection questionnaire for socialinnovators and supporters of social innovation, developed in the context ofSIMPACT’sDeliverable4.2.Forthatpurpose,thequestionswerepresentedtotheparticipantsandeditoriallyalteredduringthegroupdiscussion.SIMPACT’sdeliverable4.2 (D4.2Criteria&Recommendations toStrengthenSI)1proposeda“contextunderstandingguidethatshouldbridgetheoreticalinsightsondriversandbarriersforSIandthepracticeofsocialentrepreneurship.Theguideprovidesquestionsthatactorsinvolvedinsocialinnovationshouldaskthemselvesin order to understand the ecosystem of their SI and to identify driving andhamperingfactors.Theworkshopdiscussedthisguide.Thefeedbackofthestakeholdersproducedamucheasiertoreadversionofthisguidebyeditingthelanguageoftheguideandproposingsimplewordsandshortquestions.Scientificexpressionssuchas“actor”or “system” were replaced by spoken language expressions such “people andorganisations”.Thisistheimprovedversionoftheguide:
2.1 UnderstandingtheEcosystemofSocialInnovation
1. WhatisthepurposeofyourSI?
2. WhatarerelevantpeopleandorganisationsinthefieldtheSIwantstoaddress?Howaretheyguardingestablishedpractices?
3. WhichsolutionsdoalreadyexisttotackletheproblemtheSIaddresses?
4. Whatelseandwhoelsemightinfluenceyou?
5. Whatarelocal/regionalactorsrelevantforyourSI?
6. Whoorwhatarebarrierstoyourprogress?
7. HowdoesyourSIaddvalueandtowhom?Howdoyouimprovepeople’slivesorpreventthemfromharm?
8. Howdoyouknowyouareaddingvalue?Thinkabout:
a. Qualitymeasurement
1http://www.simpact-project.eu/publications/reports/SIMPACT_D42.pdf
Approach
|7
b. Norms,standardsandregulations
c. Recognitionandcertificates
9. WhoistheaddresseeoftheSI?
10. Whoarestakeholders?
11. Whoisinvolvedintheinnovationprocess?Whoshould?Orwhowantstobeinvolved?
12. Whoarepotentialpartners?
2.2 RunningaSocialInnovation
• Atthebeginningofthediscussion,itwaspointedoutbytheparticipantsthatthedifferencebetweensocialentrepreneurshipandsocial innovationshouldbeemphasizedmoreclearlyastheContextUnderstandingGuidefocusesmoreon the entrepreneurial aspect of social innovations and not on the SIsthemselves.
• The production factors in need to perform a social innovation werecomplementedwiththefactorof“socialcapital”,asitisassignedakeyroletothisfactorinthedevelopment,e.g.whenitpromotesaccesstofinancialcapitalorknowledge.Furthermore,theconnectionbetweenthefactors“knowledge”and“labour”shouldbeoutlined,astheworkforcecanbeseenasonewaytogain specific knowledge into the organization and, in the guide’s originalversion,theaccrualofknowledgeisfocusedonlyonknowledgefromexternalsources.
• Thedifferenttypesofsupportactorswerecomplementedwithindividualsofcivilsocietyasafifthtypeofactor.Thedenomination“charities”changedinto“civil society organisations (CSOs)”, as the understanding of theseorganisationsisbasedonacomplexmission,exceedingthepracticeofsimplygivingmeanstopeopleinneed.
• Thedenomination“for-profit”shouldbeavoided,astherearemanySIsthataregeneratingprofitbutdonotfollowthegoalofenlargingtheirprofitmarginforasimpleincreaseofcapital.Rather,theyfollowthegoaltobecomefinanciallyefficient, tomaintainand improvetheirself-sustainabilitybyreinvestingthegeneratedincomenearlyfullyintotheirbusiness.
• Whenasking about themanagementproceduresperformedwithin the SI, itshould be differentiated to explicitly mentioning official and unofficialmanagementprocedures.
• Thequestion regarding the involvementof the target group is basedon theassumption of a hierarchy between the SI and the vulnerable people or
8|
beneficiaries.However,aninterdependencybetweentheSI,thetargetgroupand other stakeholders, generated by the actions of these different actors,shouldbeassumedincontrast.Thus,thisquestion–aswellasthefollowingquestion regarding the various stakeholders – should be rephrasedaccordingly.
• Thequestionregardingtheinnovator’sobjectives,motivationsandambitionsrefers to the SI’s history and the reasons for its emergence. This kind ofhindsightcouldbeutilizedtoexaminefutureimplicationsofthesemotivationsregardingtheSI’smodusoperandi.However,oneshouldbeawareofthefactthatthisquestionimpliesakindofoversightovertheprocessasawholeandthepresentsituationthatoftenisnotexistentinthatway.
|9
3 FEEDBACKONTHE«BUSINESSTOOLBOX»
3.1 AccessibilityandLanguageComprehensibility
Stakeholdersclearlystatedthatthelanguageusedtointroducethetoolsisoftentechnical:theybelievethatthischaracteristiccouldpreventpeoplefromusingit.Stakeholders’suggestionswere:
• To change the name of some tools, also using paraphrases (to makelanguageclosertotheusersofthetools);
• TosimplifythetitlesoftheBusinessmodelsboxes;
• To consider that people operating in the field of SI are often against“economic language” also due to ideological or political reasons (it wassuggestedtoavoidtermslikecustomers,surplus,revenues…).
Theseconddiscussiongroupcametosimilarconclusions(thewholetoolboxhasa“businessflavour”thatcouldbecomeabarriertoitsadoption),butalsodiscussedthepossibility thatexplicitly referring tobusiness couldbeausefulprovocativeapproach to sustain the need tomore carefully take into account the economicaspectsofSI.Italsodiscussedthedifficultyoffindingapplicableterms(e.g.:“user”or“beneficiary”couldnotgrasptheproactiverolethatpeoplemayhaveinSI,while“target group” sounds weird and bound to outdated welfare models andinitiatives).
3.2 TargetsoftheToolbox
Stakeholdersliketheideaofhavingdifferenttargetsforthetoolbox.However,theynoticedthatthedesignofthetoolboxisnottakingintoconsiderationformsofSIestablishedandcarriedonbyacommunity.Stakeholders’suggestionswere:
• Tofigureouthowthistoolboxcouldbeusedincaseofcommunity-ledSIs,taking into account that communities should always be supported by afacilitator;
• To consider that the use of the toolbox by a community should aim tosupportthedevelopmentofprojectsanddocumentationtoaccessgrants,contributionsandotherresourcesmorethantodevelopaself-sustainablebusinessmodel.
10|
Theabsenceofpolicymakersamongthetargetgroupswasalsoquestioned,butweclarifiedthattheprojectisgoingtoreleaseacomplementarytoolboxspecificallytargetingpolicymakers(SIPolicyToolbox).
3.3 LogicoftheToolbox
Stakeholdersappreciatedthelogicbehindthetoolbox,basedonarevisedversionof the business model canvas. They appreciated the re-elaboration of theframework and the integration of the social value in the canvas. Stakeholdersappreciatedthequestionswithinthebusinessmodelboxes(buildingblocks):theyevaluatedthequestionstobeuseful,clearandeffectiveenoughtoguidepeopletousethecanvasasagatewaytothetoolbox.Stakeholders’suggestionswere:
• Totestthetoolboxwithdifferentrepresentativesofthetargets;
• Toexploitinfographicstodesignthetoolbox.
3.4 GapsintheListofTools
Stakeholders appreciated the idea tomap the tools on thebasis of thebusinessmodelscanvasboxes(buildingblocksofthebusinessmodel)buttheydidnotlikethe classification of the tools in the categories we showed in the presentationduringtheworkshop.Stakeholders’suggestionswere:
• Tonotshowtotheusersthecategoriesemployedtoclassifythetools;
• Toshowtoolsmappedonthebusinessmodelcanvas;
• Tochangethelabelofthetoolboxboxes(adoptingasimplerlanguagemoreinlinewiththelanguageoftheusers);
• Toaddcommunicationtools(storytellingoftheSI);
• Toaddassetsmappingtools.
|11
ANNEX
Aims,structureandmethodologyoftheworkshop
Thisdocumentisinformingotherworkpackages–especiallyWP1andWP3abouttheoutcomesoftheseconditerationofthe“small-scalestakeholderexperiments”whicharetask2.2ofWP2(“SIBehaviourScenarios”).
“The overall objective (of WP2) is to test and verify thefindings, concepts, models and instruments developedthroughout the project by simulating different scenarios ofhowsocialinnovationworksinaneconomic‘efficient’way.Tothisendweapplyagent-basedmodellingand–withtheaimgoingbeyondtheoreticalmodels–complementarysmall-scalestakeholderexperimentswillbecarriedout.Bothmethodswilllead to the deduction of future social innovation scenarios(understoodasintermsoftheprobabilityofsocialinnovationgivencertainsetsof interactionsbetweenindividuals inandwith their environment) to support social innovationstakeholders in coping with uncertainties associated withsocialinnovation.”(DOW,p8)
After the theoretical work of WP1 – delivered in “Comparative Report on SIFramework”(D1.1)-,theWP2isdedicatedtotestingandchallengingtheanalysedapproachestoeconomicallyunderpinSocialInnovations.Inthreeiterations,WP2is challenging, commentingon and improving the theoretical foundation laidbyWP1 (round1 inSeptember2014)and thedevelopedmodelsofWP3andWP4(rounds 2 and 3 in June 2015 and June 2016). In this understanding,WP2 is acentraltesting,improvement,stakeholderimplementationandfeedbackplatformforalldevelopedmodelsofthethreecentralresearchWPs.Thesmall-scalestakeholderexperiments(T2.2)areoneoffourtasksinWP2andthe“counterpart”oftheagent-basedmodellingofSIscenarios.ThefourtasksofWP2–“SIBehaviourScenarios”
1. T2.1:Theoreticalmodellingprovides“mathematical”aspectsofscenarios
2. T2.2: The aim of the small-scale stakeholder experiments is to reflectscenariosofhowSIworksinaneconomic“efficient”waybythe“practical”perspectivesofdifferentvulnerablegroupsandpolicymakersinthisfield.
ReferencetootherWPs
ThefourtasksofWP2
12|
ThistaskwillbuildonthefindingsofT2.1andwillenhancethemodelbyfieldexperience.
3. T2.3: Both findings – from modelling and small-scale stakeholderexperiments–willbeputtogetherandbefedintotheproject’sreflectionitinerarytoallotherresearchWPs.
4. T2.4: The resultswill be fed into themodelling of scenarioswhichwilldescribe scenarios (likelihoodsof social innovation given certain sets ofinteractionsbetween individuals inandwith their environment)ofhowsocialinnovationscouldbeeconomicallyunderpinned.
While WP1 has established the theoretical and T2.1 the analytical discussionground, thestakeholderexperiments(T2.2)arechallengingthis,doinga“realitycheck”andimproveoutcomesbyexperts’andtargetgroups’perspectives.Itistheaimofthistask“(…)tocontrastthemodellingexercisewithqualitativefeedbackfrompolicymakers,intermediaries–representingtheidentifiedvulnerablegroups–andinnovators.”(DOW,p9)The small-scale stakeholder experiments aim at qualitative feedback from theperspective of all quadruple helix partners on Social Innovation. These arestakeholderswhoareeither
1. actuallyworkingwithoneormorefieldsofvulnerablepeopleandcanbeseenastheirstakeholders,
2. responsibleforpolicyinthisarea,
3. activesocialinnovatorsor
4. supporting social innovation processes by research, consultation orfacilitation.
Followingtheapproachofqualitativeresearch,theexperimentsdonotintendtoproducerepresentativedata,butreflectionsthatwillshowthevarietyofpossibleperspectivesonourcase.Desiredoutcomesare
1. anunderstandingofthereasonsandconditionsofSIandtheireconomicunderpinning,
2. qualifiedcommentsonthepriormodels(WP1andT2.1)and
3. new typologies,models and scenariosof drivers andbarriers for SI andtheireconomicdimension.
Thesmall-scalestakeholderexperiments
Participants
DesiredOutcomes
|13
AGENDAOFTHEEXPERIMENTWORKSHOP
10:00am Welcome&IntroductionofSIMPACT
IntroductionofSIMPACT,itsunderstandingofsocialinnovationandthecontextofresearchIntroductionofParticipants(Name,Organisation,theSIthatmattersmostinmyareaofwork)Input:ThemodellingofdriversandbarriersofSIfromSIMPACT(theoreticalmodellingandagent-basedmodelling),MehtapAKGÜÇ,CEPS
11:00am DiscussingSIMPACT’sempiricalresults
2WorkingGroups(oneledbyBastianPELKA,theotherbyMonaMARKMANN)Plenarysession:Introductionofgroupresults
13:00pm Lunch
14:00pm Discussingexperts’expectationstowardstoolsforsupporting
socialInnovation
2WorkingGroupsPlenarysession:Introductionofgroupresults
14:45pm CoffeeBreak
15:00pm Wrapup&Outlook
BastianPELKA&MonaMARKMANN,TUDOsfs
16:00pm EndofProgramme
14|
Listofparticipants
Name Organization
GoizaldeAtxutegiRodríguez AgenciaVascadelaInnovación
BastianPelka TUDortmund,sfs
AmanaFerro EAPN
PetraFrancová P3-People,Planet,Profit,o.p.s.
DoreenGroveScotland'sDirectorateofConstitutionandStrategy
RichardHayman DevonCityCouncil
EberhardLüder RedCrossEU
MonaMarkmann TUDortmund,sfs
HeikeMasan UniversitätPaderborn
MatijaRaos IndependentCreativeStrategyst
GabrielaRuseva Telecentre-EuropeAISBL
AlessandroDeserti PolitecnicodiMilano
FrancescaRizzo UniversityofBologna
|15
Photosfromdiscussionresults
Figure1:”TheExisting”ismostcrucialfor“TheNew”,butveryoftenneglected
16|
Figure2:When“theinnovation”and“theexisting”meet,acrucialroleisplayedby“gatekeepers”
|17
Figure3:ResourcescarcityistypicalinSI
18|
Figure4:BricolageisatypicalworkingattitudeofSI
|19
Figure5:SIsareoftencharacterizedbycomplexlegalstructures
20|
Figure6:Understandingtheecosystemofsocialinnovation
|21
Figure7:Runningasocialinnovation
22|
Snapshots
|23
24|
sfs
socialinnovation
C EP S
WestphalianUniversity
Institute for Work & Technology