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