A very insightful and timely article, equally relevant in corporate sector as well as in international development. This will help prevent use and misuse of the term innovation and entrepreneurship.
This term social innovation is more useful than terms such as social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. I agree with some reservations. Is not there a chicken egg relationships between innovation and entrepreneurship? Which follows which? Don’t we need both terms? I don’t think it is a question of favoring one or the other.
“By focusing on the innovation, rather than on just the person or the organization, we gain a clearer understanding of the mechanisms - which The Oxford English Dictionary defines as “an ordered sequence of events” or “interconnect[ed] parts in any complex process” - that results in positive social change.” Well said!
” 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.” This definition of social innovation captures almost everything. However, an explanation that follows this definition was as follows:
“A social innovation can be principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, a social movement, an intervention, or some combination of them.” If we agree with this explanation, we may have to abandon a classical distinction between creativity and innovation as follows:
“Creativity is new ways of thinking; Innovation is new ways of doing.” Ideas and mental models would come more appropriately under creativity than innovation.
Overall, the article stimulates readers to rethink on the way we see innovation and entrepreneurship.
It is nice to drag Bill Drayton in again. But let’s be honest; not everybody is a changemaker. It is like in the microfinance world. Not everyone is a businessperson. Not even on a micro level. You can develop business skills. Sure, but that still does not mean everybody will be succesfull with a microcredit and a nice businessplan…
What I am left with is the notion that after fifty years of growing things, businesses and sectors, it sometimes becomes too big and too complex for even the greatest human beings and organisations to handle (do I have to drag the subprime mortgage crisis in here ?). After institutionalizing almost everything we feel that having everything in separate institutions is not getting us the results we want. Not in health care not in child or foster care and not in the care for the elderly. So we are back to ‘square one; according to Phills, Deiglmeier and Miller in Rediscovering Social Innovation:
“The world needs more social innovation—and so all who aspire to solve the world’s most vexing problems—entrepreneurs, leaders, managers, activists, and change agents—regardless of whether they come from the world of business, government, or nonprofits, must shed old patterns of isolation, paternalism, and antagonism and strive to understand, embrace, and leverage cross-sector dynamics to find new ways of creating social value.”
Sounds like the holistic approach to social innovation.
What is needed to achieve that is dumping the idea that great means big ( Small Giants - Bo Burlingham ) and we have to get rid of the ‘Go big or go home’ stuff. This means that a major shift has to be made in the news(paper) and opinion (magazine) industry. More ‘Ode Magazine’ type of journalism and less standard stuff with the same people showing up in every magazine and television show about being great, as in being big in business, money, spending, winning etc.
Choosing to be Great instead of Big will therefore be the way foreward. And with that choice we should remember (but not always ( ! ) limit ourselves to the fact that); the journey is as important as the destiny in many travels and we can not (and should not ! ) want to kick people out of the bus because they are born with a limited set of capacities. But maybe Collins is right about the fact that for a few people and organisations:
“Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice, and discipline.”
But I tend to believe Taleb:
‘Mild succes can be explainable by skills and labor. Wild success is attributable to variance.’
I commend the authors on a good overview. In other parts of the world this approach is becoming better understood - innovation happens in governments, business, communities as well as NGOs, even in countries like Turkey where the government often drives us mad. The American obsession with great individuals has never travelled very well. We like social entrepreneurship, but dont want to put social entrepreneurs on pedastals. I’m surprised the authors hadnt read the Oxford Said Business School report on social innovation which made very similar arguments a few years ago - with many examples from around the world. It’s a shame all the references in this piece are from the US. Hopefully as the Bush era comes to a close the rest of US society will start looking outwards again.
We read your article, “Rediscovering Social Innovation,” with great interest because we are toiling in the same vineyard—defining and strategizing at the “field level” of social innovation in the U.S. We are currently prototyping cross-sector “social innovation production networks” that use a commercial innovation stage-gate model. With support from the Kellogg and Ford Foundations, in particular, we are building these new structures in a portfolio of “edge of innovation” niches: urban sustainability; urban learning systems; workforce development; double-bottom line investing; market-driven urban community development; and transnational immigration. (These nets involve at least three of the “Ten Recent Social Innovations” you listed—charter schools; Individual Development Accounts; and Socially Responsible Investing.)
Because our networks start by focusing on the underlying innovation, rather than the individual or the enterprise, we appreciated the diligence with which you defined social innovation and contended that innovation is the fundamental construct for social change. What gets missed in the field’s current emphasis on entrepreneurs and enterprises is the discipline of social innovation and the structures that enable social innovation. So, bravo! In our experience, only the Young Foundation in the United Kingdom has provided as clear and compelling an account about the need and opportunity to design the next generation of social innovation field structures to achieve greater effectiveness and scale.
That said, we’d like to share some questions that emerged from reading your article and to let you know a little more about our work.
1. We find it crucial to specify magnitudes of improvement so that the process of innovation is differentiated from the process of continuous improvement for incremental gains. These are two very different disciplines, in our view, with different goals and requirements.
2. We find that organizing networks of individuals and organizations into producers of innovations is a useful enabling structure to depending on established organizations or lone entrepreneurs to develop innovations.
In an article we submitted to SSIR in November 2007 we described the mechanism to support social innovation that we are developing. (We’re told it is scheduled for publication in 2009.) More recently, we coauthored with Geoff Mulgan, director of the Young Foundation and former policy director for Tony Blair, an article that calls on leaders in the U.S. social sector, especially foundation directors, and the federal government to elevate social innovation to a national strategic priority. Both of these efforts seek to stimulate greater attention, discussion, understanding, and collaboration about how to generate, as you put it, “new and better approaches to creating social value.”
I think the reason that I find this article so interesting is the fact that there can be so many different meanings to the term “social innovation.” For example, Susan commented on this article explaining what social innovation means to her. I think it’s great. I also appreciate the way this article has defined social innovation, as well as social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. With social media becoming as prominent as it is these days, things such as an internet marketing blog can be one of so many ways to further the social innovation of your business.
The author of this article is giving a good overview on social innovation and how to overcome the challenges. It is interesting how the term social is being defined in many words.
I agree social innovation is the fundamental construct for social change while social enterprise is said to deliver innovation. To my understanding, they are both useful in finding new ways of creating social change.
Social enterprise focuses more on personal qualities of people who start new organizations while social innovation focuses on how ideas roles, values relationships and money can fuel the innovation process. In my observation companies have started doing business in the social way and interacting with the end users. As much as companies main goal is to make profit most business are creating social value through cooperate social responsibilities, cooperate citizenship and social responsible business.
Then moladi falls smack bang into this category Social Inventor - Social Innovation Invention creates: Jobs for the unemployed - Food for the hungry - Shelter for the homeless
I have an issue with the definition of social innovation as it’s stated here. See my argument on my own web at http://www.education4site.org/blog/2016/social-innovation-in-education/. My point is that if education is a public good then any innovation that can be linked to education is a social innovation. If every innovation in a given context is a social innovation then that diminishes the value of the concept, at worst, rendering it useless.
COMMENTS
BY Laxmi Pant
ON September 11, 2008 02:06 PM
A very insightful and timely article, equally relevant in corporate sector as well as in international development. This will help prevent use and misuse of the term innovation and entrepreneurship.
This term social innovation is more useful than terms such as social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. I agree with some reservations. Is not there a chicken egg relationships between innovation and entrepreneurship? Which follows which? Don’t we need both terms? I don’t think it is a question of favoring one or the other.
“By focusing on the innovation, rather than on just the person or the organization, we gain a clearer understanding of the mechanisms - which The Oxford English Dictionary defines as “an ordered sequence of events” or “interconnect[ed] parts in any complex process” - that results in positive social change.” Well said!
” 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.” This definition of social innovation captures almost everything. However, an explanation that follows this definition was as follows:
“A social innovation can be principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, a social movement, an intervention, or some combination of them.” If we agree with this explanation, we may have to abandon a classical distinction between creativity and innovation as follows:
“Creativity is new ways of thinking; Innovation is new ways of doing.” Ideas and mental models would come more appropriately under creativity than innovation.
Overall, the article stimulates readers to rethink on the way we see innovation and entrepreneurship.
BY Henk J.Th. van Stokkom
ON September 14, 2008 11:48 AM
It is nice to drag Bill Drayton in again. But let’s be honest; not everybody is a changemaker. It is like in the microfinance world. Not everyone is a businessperson. Not even on a micro level. You can develop business skills. Sure, but that still does not mean everybody will be succesfull with a microcredit and a nice businessplan…
What I am left with is the notion that after fifty years of growing things, businesses and sectors, it sometimes becomes too big and too complex for even the greatest human beings and organisations to handle (do I have to drag the subprime mortgage crisis in here ?). After institutionalizing almost everything we feel that having everything in separate institutions is not getting us the results we want. Not in health care not in child or foster care and not in the care for the elderly. So we are back to ‘square one; according to Phills, Deiglmeier and Miller in Rediscovering Social Innovation:
“The world needs more social innovation—and so all who aspire to solve the world’s most vexing problems—entrepreneurs, leaders, managers, activists, and change agents—regardless of whether they come from the world of business, government, or nonprofits, must shed old patterns of isolation, paternalism, and antagonism and strive to understand, embrace, and leverage cross-sector dynamics to find new ways of creating social value.”
Sounds like the holistic approach to social innovation.
What is needed to achieve that is dumping the idea that great means big ( Small Giants - Bo Burlingham ) and we have to get rid of the ‘Go big or go home’ stuff. This means that a major shift has to be made in the news(paper) and opinion (magazine) industry. More ‘Ode Magazine’ type of journalism and less standard stuff with the same people showing up in every magazine and television show about being great, as in being big in business, money, spending, winning etc.
Choosing to be Great instead of Big will therefore be the way foreward. And with that choice we should remember (but not always ( ! ) limit ourselves to the fact that); the journey is as important as the destiny in many travels and we can not (and should not ! ) want to kick people out of the bus because they are born with a limited set of capacities. But maybe Collins is right about the fact that for a few people and organisations:
“Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice, and discipline.”
But I tend to believe Taleb:
‘Mild succes can be explainable by skills and labor. Wild success is attributable to variance.’
Full version: http://vanstokkom.blogspot.com/2008/09/good-to-great-social-innovation.html
BY Ahmet Erenler
ON September 22, 2008 07:34 AM
I commend the authors on a good overview. In other parts of the world this approach is becoming better understood - innovation happens in governments, business, communities as well as NGOs, even in countries like Turkey where the government often drives us mad. The American obsession with great individuals has never travelled very well. We like social entrepreneurship, but dont want to put social entrepreneurs on pedastals. I’m surprised the authors hadnt read the Oxford Said Business School report on social innovation which made very similar arguments a few years ago - with many examples from around the world. It’s a shame all the references in this piece are from the US. Hopefully as the Bush era comes to a close the rest of US society will start looking outwards again.
BY Peter Plastrik
ON October 15, 2008 10:33 AM
We read your article, “Rediscovering Social Innovation,” with great interest because we are toiling in the same vineyard—defining and strategizing at the “field level” of social innovation in the U.S. We are currently prototyping cross-sector “social innovation production networks” that use a commercial innovation stage-gate model. With support from the Kellogg and Ford Foundations, in particular, we are building these new structures in a portfolio of “edge of innovation” niches: urban sustainability; urban learning systems; workforce development; double-bottom line investing; market-driven urban community development; and transnational immigration. (These nets involve at least three of the “Ten Recent Social Innovations” you listed—charter schools; Individual Development Accounts; and Socially Responsible Investing.)
Because our networks start by focusing on the underlying innovation, rather than the individual or the enterprise, we appreciated the diligence with which you defined social innovation and contended that innovation is the fundamental construct for social change. What gets missed in the field’s current emphasis on entrepreneurs and enterprises is the discipline of social innovation and the structures that enable social innovation. So, bravo! In our experience, only the Young Foundation in the United Kingdom has provided as clear and compelling an account about the need and opportunity to design the next generation of social innovation field structures to achieve greater effectiveness and scale.
That said, we’d like to share some questions that emerged from reading your article and to let you know a little more about our work.
1. We find it crucial to specify magnitudes of improvement so that the process of innovation is differentiated from the process of continuous improvement for incremental gains. These are two very different disciplines, in our view, with different goals and requirements.
2. We find that organizing networks of individuals and organizations into producers of innovations is a useful enabling structure to depending on established organizations or lone entrepreneurs to develop innovations.
In an article we submitted to SSIR in November 2007 we described the mechanism to support social innovation that we are developing. (We’re told it is scheduled for publication in 2009.) More recently, we coauthored with Geoff Mulgan, director of the Young Foundation and former policy director for Tony Blair, an article that calls on leaders in the U.S. social sector, especially foundation directors, and the federal government to elevate social innovation to a national strategic priority. Both of these efforts seek to stimulate greater attention, discussion, understanding, and collaboration about how to generate, as you put it, “new and better approaches to creating social value.”
Peter Plastrik John Cleveland
BY Susan Sharma
ON January 9, 2009 04:07 AM
Social Innovation to me is “doing business” with a social motive at heart.
BY Janine McMaster
ON May 19, 2011 02:42 PM
I think the reason that I find this article so interesting is the fact that there can be so many different meanings to the term “social innovation.” For example, Susan commented on this article explaining what social innovation means to her. I think it’s great. I also appreciate the way this article has defined social innovation, as well as social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. With social media becoming as prominent as it is these days, things such as an internet marketing blog can be one of so many ways to further the social innovation of your business.
BY Piyush Charkha
ON October 13, 2014 11:50 PM
I agree with Susan. Companies have started doing business on social channels by connecting directly with end customers.
BY walkin Bath new jersey
ON October 10, 2015 03:37 PM
Great site. A lot of useful info here. I am sending it to some
friends ans additionally sharing in delicious. And of course,
thank you to your effort!
BY handicapped showers Nevada
ON October 11, 2015 03:41 PM
Thanks in support of sharing such a fastidious thought, article
is pleasant, thats why i have read it entirely
BY Margaret Koshal
ON February 10, 2016 04:17 AM
The author of this article is giving a good overview on social innovation and how to overcome the challenges. It is interesting how the term social is being defined in many words.
I agree social innovation is the fundamental construct for social change while social enterprise is said to deliver innovation. To my understanding, they are both useful in finding new ways of creating social change.
Social enterprise focuses more on personal qualities of people who start new organizations while social innovation focuses on how ideas roles, values relationships and money can fuel the innovation process. In my observation companies have started doing business in the social way and interacting with the end users. As much as companies main goal is to make profit most business are creating social value through cooperate social responsibilities, cooperate citizenship and social responsible business.
BY moladi
ON June 17, 2016 02:23 AM
Then moladi falls smack bang into this category Social Inventor - Social Innovation Invention creates: Jobs for the unemployed - Food for the hungry - Shelter for the homeless
BY Tryggvi Thayer
ON June 30, 2016 01:00 AM
I have an issue with the definition of social innovation as it’s stated here. See my argument on my own web at http://www.education4site.org/blog/2016/social-innovation-in-education/. My point is that if education is a public good then any innovation that can be linked to education is a social innovation. If every innovation in a given context is a social innovation then that diminishes the value of the concept, at worst, rendering it useless.
BY Naoki OKAMOTO
ON June 3, 2017 02:09 AM
This article inspires me. Thank you so much!!