fosteringsocialinnovationinCanadathrough
research • education • advocacy • collaboration
WORKINGPAPER
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson:
UsingResilienceTheorytoExamine
PublicPolicyandSocialInnovation
MicheleLeeMooreFrancesWestleyOlaTjornboCarinHolroyd
WorkingPaperNo.003
January2010
SocialInnovationGeneration@UniversityofWaterloo
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page2
Tosendcommentstotheauthorspleasecontact:
MicheleLeeMooreMcConnellFellow,SiG@Waterloomlmoore@balsillieschool.caFrancesWestleyJ.W.McConnellChairinSocialInnovationSocialInnovationGeneration,UniversityofWaterloofwestley@uwaterloo.caOlaTjornboMcConnellFellowSocialInnovationGeneration,UniversityofWaterlooolatjornbo@btinternet.comCarinHolroydDepartmentofPoliticalScience,FacultyofArtsSocialInnovationGeneration,[email protected]
________
IfyouwouldliketobeaddedtoourmailinglistorhavequestionsregardingourWorkingPaperSeriespleasecontactinfo@sig.uwaterloo.ca
Pleasevisitwww.sig.uwaterloo.catofindoutmoreinformationonSocialInnovationGenerationattheUniversityofWaterloo(SiG@Waterloo).
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page3
SocialInnovationGeneration@UniversityofWaterloo
WORKINGPAPER
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson:
UsingResilienceTheorytoExaminePublicPolicyandSocialInnovation*
MicheleLeeMooreFrancesWestleyOlaTjornboCarinHolroyd
WorkingPaperNo.003January2010
_____________________________
*DRAFTforDISCUSSION–Pleasedonotquotewithoutauthors’permission
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page4
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page5
Abstract
Socialinnovationisanimportantcomponentofbeingresilient–newideaswillkeepasociety
adaptable,flexibleandlearning.Therefore,thebettertheunderstandingoftheconditionsthatenable
innovationsnotonlytoemerge,buttotakehold,becomeroutinizedwithinourbroadersocial
structures,andthentofacedisruptionordisturbance,thegreaterthecapacityhumanswillhavetobe
resilient.Oneoftheseconditionsprovidesspacefortheroleofthestateandpublicpolicy.Atthe
broadestlevel,certainpoliticalphilosophiesprivilegeemergenceandinnovationmorethanothers.
Withinallregimes,however,numerousoptionsexistforpolicytoolsthatcould,andinmanycases,
havebeenusedtofostersocialinnovation.Theimportantquestionforapolicymakeriswhichpolicy
leverandwhen?Thispaperwilluseresiliencetheoryandtheadaptivecycletoarguethatdifferent
policieshavegreaterimpactatspecificpointsoftimeinthecycleofsocialinnovation.Therefore,
recognizingthedistinctphasesofsocialinnovationiscentraltounderstandingwhichpolicywillbe
mostsuitable.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page6
IntroductiontoSocialInnovation
Socialinnovationisdefinedhereasanynewprogram,product,ideaorinitiativethat
profoundlychangesthebasicroutines,resourceandauthorityflowsorbeliefsofanysocialsystem.
Successfulsocialinnovationshavedurabilityandbroadimpact.Socialentrepreneurshipontheother
hand,referstoindividualswithavalue‐based,socialmissionwhopursueopportunitieswithinthe
marketcontext,whethertheirownorganizationisconsiderednon‐profit,charity,orforprofit
(Nicholls,2006).Themarketorientationisoneofthecleardistinctionsbetweentheworkinthesocial
entrepreneurshipfieldandthatofsocialinnovation,associalinnovationdoesnotrequirethemarket
contextandquiteoftenmaychallengeexistingeconomicmodelsandideologies.
Additionally,socialinnovationisfocusedonsystemicchange.Whileasuccessfulsocial
entrepreneurmayberecognizedonceamarketdemandhasbeencreatedandtheinnovationdiffuses
fromonetomanypeople,asocialinnovationdisruptsalargerinstitutionalcontext(Westley,2008).
Thus,theinnovationmayoccurdependingonpolitical,culturaloreconomicopportunitiesand
therefore,doesnotrelyonaspecific,incrementalvolumeofadoptiontobeconsideredasuccess
(Westley,2008).Therelationshipbetweenthetwoasareasofstudyandpracticeisthatsomesocial
innovationswilloccurasaresultoftheworkofsocialentrepreneurs.Likewise,thelessonsand
knowledgethathasbeenadvancedaboutsuccessfulsocialentrepreneurs(e.g.Leadbeater,1997;Dees,
1998;Nicholls,2006;Bornstein,2007)isusefulforunderstandingandcomparingtheentrepreneurs
disruptingentiresystems.
Agrowingbodyofworkfocusesontheroleofentrepreneurs,partnershipswithprivateactors
andnon‐profits,theroleoffoundations,andthesupportofsocialnetworksincreatingtheconditions
thatenablethegenerationandsustainabilityofsocialinnovations.Butinpractice,theroleofpublic
policyandgovernmentshasalsocometotheforefrontofdiscussionsaboutsocialinnovation.Some
attempttocoordinateandsupporttheenergyofsocialentrepreneursandsocialenterpriseshasbeen
made,withexamplessuchastheOfficeoftheThirdSectorintheUKandthenewlycreatedCentrefor
SocialInnovationintheUS.Othergovernmentshavechosensimplytopromotethe“production”of
innovation,withfundingforresearchanddevelopmentandthetechnologysectors.Yet,whilefunding
innovativeinitiativescanbeoneoption,itneglectstheactualcontextthatmayhavecreatedtheneed
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page7
forinnovativesolutionsinthefirstplaceandtherefore,maydolittletoeffectsystemicchange.
Politicalintentaside,alackofdebateandunderstandingabouttherangeofpolicyoptionsthatcould
bestsupporttheprocessofsocialinnovationisminimalamongstbothpractitionersandscholars.The
conceptualpiecepresentedhereisourattempttobeginamoreextensivediscussion.Thispaper
arguesthatsuccessfulsocialinnovationhasatleastfourdistinctphasesandtherefore,different
policiesareneededtosupportsocialinnovationdependingonthephase.Therefore,policymakers
needtounderstandwhattheyaretryingtochangeandthephaseofthepossiblesolutionsthatare
availableorthatcouldbecreated.
TheCycleofSocialInnovation
Socialinnovationisanimportantcomponentofbeingresilient–newideaswillkeepasociety
adaptable,flexibleandlearning.Therefore,thebettertheunderstandingoftheconditionsthatenable
innovationsnotonlytoemerge,buttotakehold,becomeroutinizedwithinourbroadersocial
structures,andthentofacedisruptionordisturbance,thegreaterthecapacityhumanswillhavetobe
resilient.Thetheoryofresilienceprovidesameaningfullenstoimprovethisunderstandingandisused
asabasistoframetheargumentpresentedhere.
Resiliencetheorystemsfromworkinecologyinthe1970sandtheadaptivecycle(orinfinity
loop)isakeyfeature.Thetheoryrestsupontheideathatanyresilientecosystemisdynamically
movingthroughanadaptivecycleandthatremainingstagnantinafixedequilibriumisnothealthy.The
adaptivecyclehasatleastfourdistinctphasesinwhatisbestpicturedasafigureeight,whichare
exploitation,conservation,release,andreorganization(Gunderson&Holling,2002).Ratherthan
focusingonecosystems,thisworkexamineshowinnovationsmayimprovetheresilienceofoursocial
ecologicalsystems.Indoingso,itappliesresiliencetheoryandtheadaptivecycletoconsiderthefour
phasesthatsocialinnovationsmustgothrough.
Essentially,resiliencetheoryindicatesthatatanygiventimeadisturbancecanaffectasystem,
whetheritisafinancialcrisis,anaturaldisaster,orsomeothertypeofeventthatmaycreateatipping
point,andthenresourcesandcapital,includingsocialcapital,intellectualcapitalalongwithmore
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page8
traditionalformssuchasfinancialcapitalarereleased,orfreedup.Duetothedisturbanceorcrisis,a
breakdownmayoccurinsomeexistingsocialstructureswhichcanpresentbothaperiodofseeming
chaos,butalsoaplacewhereemergencecanoccur;thatis,differentinteractionsmaynowtakeplace
amongstthenewlyfreedupresources,andnewknowledgeandnewideasmayariseasaresultofthe
newconnections.Asimilarideaofacycleisreflectedinliteratureonprivatesectorinnovation,and
theperiodofmassivedisturbanceisfrequentlyreferredtoasSchumpeter’s(1942)processofcreative
destruction.
Intheadaptivecycle,oncethedisturbanceandtheincreasedactivityandinteractionsoccurs,
thesystemmovesintothebackpartofthefigureeightloop.Inthisbackloopofthesocialinnovation
process,somepeoplemaystarttoclusteraroundthenewideasthathaveemergedorstartto
reorganizethemselveswithotherswhoshareasimilarvisionforthefuture.Itisinthebackloopwhere
truenoveltyandinnovationislikelytoemerge.
Movingforwardintothefrontloop,choicesaremadethatsupportorshowcasecertain
innovations,whichproveitseffectivenessormeaningfulness.Manyinnovationsgettrappedhereand
cannotmoveintothefrontloop.Commonwisdomisthatmanyexcellentnewideasregularlyemerge,
buttheyareunableorunsuccessfulinchallengingpeopleattherighttimetoensuresupportorin
framingtheirinnovationinawaythatmakesitappearaslegitimate,desirableandneeded.
Consequently,sufficientresourcesareneverdevotedtotheseinnovations.Theliteratureaboutsocial
entrepreneursoftenexploresquestionsabouthowandwhysomepeoplearebetterabletoachieve
thisstep.
Ifresourcesdobegintobedevotedtothatinnovation,othersocialstructuresbegintoemerge,
whetherthisinvolvescertainnormsbecomingwidelyaccepted,institutionsbeingcreated,or
regulationsbeingestablished.Inanybroadsocialsystem,numerousadaptiveloopsthatrepresentsub‐
systemswouldexistinvariousphasesoftheadaptivecycleatanygiventime.Usingatechnological
example,wecanthinkoftheInternetasitmovedfrombeinganideaofafewpeople,tobeginningto
gainsupportandresourcestodevelopit,thenactuallybeingabletogainuserswhowouldsupportthe
innovationasanimportanttool,whichgarneredfurtherresources,andslowlyitsusebegantobe
institutionalizedandinturn,institutionsrelatedtoitsregulationanditsfurtherdevelopmentallbegan
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page9
tobeestablished.Atthesametime,wecanimaginethehardwareforwirelesstechnologyatanyofits
phasesinanotherloop.Mostsignificantlyistheinteractionbetweentheloops–whenaninnovationis
abletoactuallycrossscalesintoalargersystem.
SocialInnovation:WhatRoleforGovernment?
Wepositthatgovernmenthasaroleinsocialinnovation.Butwhatdoesthetheoryofresilience
indicatetheroleofpublicpolicytobewithregardstosocialinnovation?Firstly,itemphasizesthatthe
roleisgoingtobedynamicthroughouttheprocessandtherefore,thispaperarguesthatnosingle
policyisgoingtobeusefulfortheentireinnovationlifecycle.Yetwhileboththeliteratureon
innovationandthevarietyofliteratureemergingongovernanceconcursthatgovernmentsnowneed
tobeflexible,adaptive,andthattheyneedtoengagewithnonstateactorssuchastheprivatesector
inordertoenableandsupportinnovation,whatdoesthisactuallymeanforpublicpolicy?Whatforms
ofgovernancehavebeendevelopedtotacklecomplexproblems?
Althoughthereisalackofscholarshiplinkinggovernancetosocialinnovation,variousattempts
havebeenmadetocreategovernanceparadigmsdesignedtoallowgovernmenttomanagecomplex
problems.Inthefieldofecologyforexample,buildingonresiliencetheory,agroupofresearchers
havecreatedtheconceptofadaptivegovernance,designedtocreatetheidealconditionsforbuilding
resilientsocialecologicalsystems(Olsson,etal.,2004a;Olsson,etal.,2004b;Folke,etal.,2005;
Olsson,etal.,2006).Anotherparadigmisreflexivegovernance(Voß,etal.,2006)createdtoallow
effectiveresponsesinsituationswhereuncertaintyishigh,decisionmakingpoweriswidelyand
unequallydispersedandthereisconflictbetweeninterestgroupsovervaluesandgoals.Thekindsof
challengesthesetwoparadigmsareintendedtoaddressareroughlyanalogoustothechallengeof
socialinnovationwhenitisexaminedthrougharesiliencelensandhence,shouldmarkapromising
startingpointforthisstudy.
Promisingly,thereisagreatdealofoverlapbetweentheseparadigms,indicatingthatsome
agreementexistsaboutthegovernanceelementsthatareimportantwhencomplexproblemsareat
stake(seefig.1).Itshouldbeimmediatelyapparentfromthetablethatneitheroftheseparadigmsis
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page10
focusedatthelevelofconcretepublicpolicy,rathertheyaredescribingdesirablecharacteristicsof
entiregovernancesystems.Wehaveadditionallygroupedtheseintothemes,thoughinsomecases,a
singleelementfitsintomorethanonetheme.
Fig.1:ThemesofComplexityGovernance
GovernanceTheme ElementsofReflexiveGovernance(FromVossandKemp2006)
ElementsofAdaptiveGovernance(SynthesizedfromOlssonetal2006;Olsson,FolkeandBerkes2004andOlsson,FolkeandHahn2004)
Transdisciplinaryknowledgeproduction
Transdisciplinaryknowledgeproduction
Integrationandmobilizationofdiversesetsofknowledge
Governanceasongoingexperiment
Experimentsandadaptivityofstrategiesandinstitutions
Ongoingexperimentationinecosystemmanagementactions;Monitoring
Participatoryapproaches Iterative,participatorygoalformulation
Collaborationofmultipleanddiverseactors;Selforganization;Developmentandmobilizationofsocialnetworkstofacilitateleaning,knowledgesharingandcollaboration
Continuouslearning Interactivestrategydevelopment
Dynamiclearning;Monitoring
Takingasystemsperspective Anticipationoflong‐termsystemiceffects
Wholesystemsperspective
Flexibility Experimentsandadaptivityofstrategiesandinstitutions
Flexibility;Sitespecificity
Itisclearthatthetwoparadigmsdonotgiveequalweighttoallthethemesandelementswe
haveidentified.Thismaypartlybeexplainedbythefactthatadaptivegovernanceismoresensitiveto
theneedforaccurateandcredibleknowledgeandthereforeconcentratesonknowledgeandlearning
networks,whilereflexivegovernanceismorecautiousandrecognizesthatparticipatoryapproaches
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page11
ofteninvolvevalueconflictsthatneedtoberesolvedbeforelargerproblemsolvingbecomespossible
andthereforeemphasizesgoalsandstrategies.
Althoughthethemesdescribedinthistabledonotfocusonthelevelofpolicy,theymaybe
usefulinhelpingtocategorizetypesofpolicyaction.Forexample,policiesdirectedtowards
encouraginglearningmightincludemonitoringprogramsandlearningworkshops,whilepoliciesthat
encourageparticipationmightincludevolunteerprogramsandopenmeetings.Additionally,some
policieswilladditionallyachieveseveralaims,suchaschallengegrants(discussedfurtherinthesection
ReorganizationPhase)mightencourageparticipation,experimentationandselectionofinnovations.
Usingthesecategorieswecanbegintounderstandthebroadrangeofactivitiesthatgovernmentis
abletoengageinasameanstoaddresscomplexproblems.
Strikinglyhowever,thenotionthatthetaskofgovernancechangesovertimeisneglectedby
bothoftheseparadigms.Althoughtheyemphasizeflexibilityandlearningandclearlyrecognizethat
complexproblemsareconstantlyevolving,neitherhasattemptedthetaskofnavigatingthese
problemsintodistinctstagesrequiringdifferenttypesofintervention.Infact,thereisatendencyto
placeagreateremphasisonconstantexperimentationanddeliberation,whichwhilecrucialforthe
releaseandreorganizationphasesoftheadaptivecycle,arecostlyandinefficientinthelongrunand
mayinfactpreventthesystemfromtransitioningtoaconservationstagewhichisanecessarypartof
thesocialinnovationcycle.Thispaperarguesthatthistypeofunderstandingiscriticaltomanagingthe
processofsocialinnovation.Undoubtedlyallofthetypesofpolicycategoriesaswellasthe
characteristicsofthesegovernancesystemsarenecessaryfornavigatingtheseprocess,theymaynot
allbenecessaryorevenhelpfulifemployedatthesametimeratherthanatdifferentstageofthecycle
whendifferenttypesofpolicyactionmaybeneeded.
Yet,staticgovernancemodels(thosethatfocusonremaininginoneortwostagesonly)
continuetoprevailandonlyafterseriouscalamitydotheybecomecalledintoquestion.Thiscanbe
observedbylookingattheeffectoftherecenteconomiccrashonthefinancialpolicyenvironment.
Beforethecrisis,theemphasisformanywasonderegulation,privateinvestment,privatizingfinancial
institutionsandencouragingflexibility,creativityandfreedominthefinancialeconomy.Theeffectsof
thisapproacharewellknownandthecallsforareversalofpolicycamequicklyafterthecrash.The
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page12
statewasforcedtoinvestheavilyinkeepingtheprivateinstitutionsafloatwiththeresultthatithas
becomeamajorityshareholderinmanycasesandinothershasfullynationalizedpreviouslyprivate
organizations.Alongwiththisinvestmenthavecomecallsforregulationandparticularlyforaclamp
downonbonuses.Althoughthereissupportforthiseconomicmodel,thereisalsocriticismbythose
arguingthatalthoughregulationmayhavebeeneffectiveinpreventingthecrash,whatwillnowbe
neededistoallowtheeconomytoretainitsfreedomtoallowplentyofroomfornewenterpriseso
thatrecoverycanbegintooccur.Fromaresilienceperspectivewecansaythatatransitionfrom
conservationtoreleasephaseshasoccurredandpolicymakersneedtopaycloseattentiontothe
changingconditionsandtailorpolicyaccordingly,ratherthansimplyreinforcingthesystemthat
persistedbefore.
Currently,numerousoptionsforpolicytoolsthatcould,andinmanycases,havebeenusedto
fostersocialinnovationexist,including:regulation,subsidies,theindirectprovisionofservices(e.g.
financialsupportforuniversities),thedirectprovisionofservices(e.g.medicalcare),taxarrangements,
enforcementandimplementationagreements,signaling(e.g.employmentequityprovisions),
awarenesscampaigns,incentivesforconsumers,incentivesforbusinesses,RoyalCommissionsand
otherconveningexercises,andawards.
Thedifficultyisinunderstandingwhichpolicyleverismostsuitedtoenablingsocialinnovation
andwhenshoulditbeused.Thispaperarguesthatdifferentpoliciesaregoingtobemoreuseful
dependingontheactualphaseofinnovationandthattheadaptivecycleisahelpfultooltoconsider
theimpactsofdifferentpolicytoolsinthefourdifferentphasesofsocialinnovation.
ExamplesofthePolicySocialInnovationRelationship
Forthissection,wewilldescribethecharacteristicsofthephasesofsocialinnovationinmoredetail
anddescribepotentialpolicyinitiativesthatwouldbewellplacedinthedifferentphases,using
examplestoillustrate.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page13
ReleasePhase:Policyapproachesfor“sensemaking”forcomplexproblemsand/orwhenno
tangibleinnovationclearlyexists
Thereleasephaseimmediatelyfollowsaperiodofcreativedestruction,oradisruptiontoa
system.Inthisphase,thegreatestneedisfornewideasandcreativesolutionsasopposedtocreating
amarketorscalingupanexistinginnovation.Theopportunitycontextmayseemopaqueinthisphase,
withpeoplegenuinelyuncertainabout“whattherightideais”andhowtomakeanythingsignificant
happen.Infact,manywillnotagreeyetonthedefinitionoftheproblemitself.Simultaneously,some
groupswillresistthevulnerabilityandchangebyattemptingtoreturntothepre‐disturbancestate,
whilemanyotherswillbeactivelyseekingandsupportiveofnewideasinthisphasemorethanany
other.Therefore,thisphaseiswheretheseedsofchangearetrulyplanted.
Withthelackofaclearproblemdefinitionandthehighlevelofuncertaintyaboutpotential
solutionsthatcharacterizethisphase,policyleversthepromotediscussion,sociallearning,and
creativesolutionstoaddresstheissuesareneeded.Researchhasshownthatnewknowledgeand
differentideasaremorelikelytoemergewhendiverseactorsthatdonotnormallyinteractclosely
withoneanotherareexposedandcomeincontactwitheachother(Burt,1992;Gilsing&Duysters,
2008)whichprovidesafoundationforpolicymakerstoconsider.However,oncethisinteraction
occurs,thepathmaygooneofthreedifferentways.Firstly,ifdecisionmakingprocessesaredesigned
toosimplyforthecomplexityorscaleofaproblem,quickconvergencemayoccur;thatis,everyone
quicklyagreesonthesamesolutionoridea(Mason,etal.,2008)whichmaybeusefulintermsofthe
rateatwhichdecisionsandchangecanhappen,butitcanalsoleadtosub‐optimalideasrapidly
spreading(Mason,etal.,2008).Theconsequenceisthatresourcesaredevotedtooneideawithout
adequateconsiderationandexplorationofnovelalternatives.
Secondly,whilediversityisneededamongactors,iftoomanydifferentsignalsandknowledge
inputsarereceivedbypeople,theircognitivelimitsmaybereached,whichcouldeventuallyleadto
possiblemisunderstandings(Mason,etal.,2008).Aswell,inorderforpeopletobewillingtosharethe
risksofinnovation,relationshipsthatarecharacterizedbytrustareimportant,whichisnotinherentto
relationshipsbetweenpeoplewhoneverinteractregularly(e.g.Uzzi,1997).Socialinnovationthen,
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page14
canreallyonlyfollowathirdpathwherethe“rightmix”ofdiversityandtrustisfound(Burt,2004;
Gilsing&Duysters,2008;Bodin&Crona,2009).
Publicpolicyinstrumentsthataremostusefulinthisphasethenarethosethatconvene
differentindividualsorgroupstogetherandprovideaforumforsharingideasandforbuildingtrusting
relationships.Multi‐stakeholdercollaborations,consultations,RoyalCommissions,andparticipatory
planningprocessesbasedonmodelssuchasFutureSearchareallexcellentexamplesoftoolsthatwill
helpfosternewinsights,newpartnerships,andnewsolutionstoemerge.
Proposition:Whencomplexproblemsneedtobebetterunderstoodandnewideasareneeded,
processesthatenableinteractionsandbuildtrustbetweenpreviouslydisconnectedgroupsarehelpful
tothegenerationofsocialinnovations.
ReorganizationPhase:PolicyLeverstoStimulateandSelectEntirelyNewInnovations
Inthereorganizationphase,theactualdefinitionoftheproblemisfarclearerthaninthe
releasephaseandtheresultisthatgroups,structures,andopinionsbecomingformedwhichwill
providetheeventualsupportofdifferentinnovationsthroughtheremainingtwophases.Infact,this
phasemarksakeytransitionfrommere“idea”toplanningforimplementation.Publicpoliciesthat
supportsocialinnovationinthisphasethenarethosethatassistinnovatorsandthenewlyformed
groupstodevelopshortandlongtermplansandthenencourageaselectionprocess.Thatis,forums
forthemeregenerationofnewideasarenotneededinthisphase;ratherdecisionsaboutwhich
innovationwillbechosenandtherefore,whichoneshouldbeinvestedinbecomesaprimaryconcern.
Manypotentiallygoodideaswillcomeforwardoutofthepreviousreleasephaseandoneofthemost
commonpitfallsistodevelopapolicyinthisphasethatonlycommitstoaprincipleof“fairness”inthe
distributionofresourcesforthenextphase,whichcantranslatetoprovidingonlyminimalsupportfor
anyandallinnovatorswithnosingleinnovationreceivingadequatesupporttosucceed.Wearguethe
“fairness”principleshouldinsteadbeembodiedintheopportunitiestoaccessandparticipateinthe
generationofnewinnovationsandthenintheprocessofselection.Withfiniteresourceswe
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page15
emphasizethatpoliciesneedtosupportselectionandthecapacityofgroupstocollectivelymake
informedchoicesabouthowtoinvestresources.
Oneofthemostsignificantdifficultieswithselectionprocessesthatgovernmentsandothers
faceisthelackofappropriateevaluationtechniquestomeasuresocialinnovationandtheoften
intangiblebenefitstheyprovide.Withoutappropriatemetrics,itbecomesdifficulttodeterminewhich
innovationisworthmovingtowardsthenextphase.
Pilotprojectswithcompleteevaluationsandchallengesthatencouragecompetitionand
partnershipsareeffectiveinthisphase.Examplesincludethe“BiketoWork”weekcampaignsthat
encouragepeopletoadoptdifferentmodesoftransportationforcommutingandprovideincentives
forgroupswhocollectivelybikethemostmileage,andtheUK’sBigGreenChallengewhichinvolvesa1
millionpoundchallengeintendedtostimulatecommunityledresponsetoclimatechange.The
Challengeorganizersselected100ofthemostpromisinggroups,whoreceivedsupportfromtheBig
GreenChallengeteamtodeveloptheirideasintodetailedplans.Fromthisgroup,10Finalistswere
shortlistedwhoarenowputtingtheirideasintopracticetocompeteforthe£1millionprize.Theyhave
untilOctober2009toreduceCO2emissionsintheircommunity.Whileitisstilltooearlytodetermine
theeffectivenessofthechallengeingeneratingsociallytransformativesolutions,earlyindicationsare
thatsomenovelideashaveemergedandthatthoseideashavecomefromcommunitiesandactors
thatarenottheusualsuspects,intermsofwhowouldnormallybeapplyingforfundingtoreduce
carbonemissions.
Otherpolicyoptionsincludeenablingtheinnovationstobeselectedthroughothermeans–inthis
case,thismaymeangovernmentssupporttheexistenceofcertainareaswhereinnovationcouldoccur
toensuretheycontinuetosurvive.Fundingforuniversitiesandeducation,grantsforthearts
community,andstudentloansareallexamplesofoptionsthatwouldsupportthisenabling
environment.
Proposition:policiesthatnotonlymotivateandrewardthegenerationofinnovativeideasbutalso
involveanevaluationprocesstoselectamongstthemanypotentialinnovations,isoneofthemore
successfuloptionsforthereorganizationphase.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page16
ExploitationPhase:PolicyLeverstoScaleOutNewinnovations
Inthisphase,themostimportantstepbecomesleveragingresourcestosupportthe
developmentoftheinnovationselectedthroughthepreviousphase.Thisphasemayinvolvethefinal
developmentofinnovations.Oftenbythisphase,theinnovationhasalreadybeensuccessfulatalocal
scaleandthegoalbecomestoscaleouttheinnovationonabroaderscale.Scalingouthowever,may
requiredifferentcomponentstobecreatedthatwillcontributetoabroadersocialinnovation,as
describedintheRDSPexamplethatfollows.Forsocialinnovationsthatleadtotrulytransformative
change,thisphaseoftenplaceslessdemandontheinnovationandplacesgreateremphasison
requiringthestructuralbarrierstotheinnovationbeaddressed.Structuralchangewilltypicallyrequire
resourcesandasourceofauthorityorpowerthatmaynotpreviouslyhaveexistedforthoseseeking
thechange.Scholarsstudyingsocialmovements,networks,therelevanceofsocialcapital,innovation
intheprivatesector,ortheincreasingroleofarangeofactorsinglobalgovernanceallprovideuseful
insightsastohowdifferentpeopleandgroupsmayseektogainaccessandlegitimatelyleveragenew
resourcesincertaincircumstances.Buthowcanpublicpolicyproactivelysupportsocialinnovationsin
thisphase?
Oneexampleinvolvesthesocialinnovationofchanginghowindividualswithdisabilitiesare
caredforinCanada.AlEtmanskiinitiallycreatedPLAN,anorganizationthathelpsbuildlocalsupport
networksforchildrenwithdisabilitiesandtheirfamilies,whichwasmetwithgreatsuccess.
Recognizingthattheselocalnetworkswereinsufficienttochangeperceptionsandthelongterm
securityofindividualswithdisabilitiesmoresubstantiallyhowever,Etmanskiworkedwithothers,
includinggovernmentandfinancialexperts,tocreatetheRegisteredDisabilitySavingsPlan(RDSP)‐a
taxdeferredbondandmatchinggovernmentgrantthatenablestaxfreefundstobeinvestedand
savedlongtermforanindividualwithadisability,thatoneday,willlosehis/herparents,guardiansor
caregiversandwillrequireafinancialmeanstosurvive.
ByadoptingtheRDSPasapolicyoptiontofocuson,thegovernmentredirectednotonlyits
resources,butalsoapprovedthefinancialinstitutionswherefamiliescouldopenanRDSPproviding
somestructuralsupport.Asthefinancialinstitutionsbecameengagedintheprocess,othersalso
redirectedtheirresourcestoraisingawarenessabouttheissuesfacingfamilieswhereonememberhas
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page17
adisabilityandprovidingsupport.Forexample,oneoftheleadingpharmacychainscalledLondon
Drugsranacontestforfamilieswhocouldwina$1500startupcontributiontoafund.Inthisway,the
governmentpolicyofanRDSPhelpedtoleverageresourcesandtobegintheshiftingbeliefsystems
abouthowpeoplewithdisabilitiescanachievefinancialsecurityandintheprocessassistedan
innovationtomovetowardstheconservationphase.
Proposition:Policiesthatenablesocialinnovationsandtheinnovatorstoaccessresources,including
social,intellectualandfinancial,arecriticaltoscalingoutinnovationsfromlocalsuccessestobroader
systemicchange.Thesepoliciesofteninvolvedproactivelyaddressingstructuralbarrierstosocial
innovation,butmustbeveryspecificsoasnottoopenopportunitiesfornegativeorneedless
exploitationofscarceresources.
ConservationPhase:PolicyLeverstoEstablishAvailableInnovationsAstheNew“BusinessAsUsual”
Theconservationphaserepresentsaphasewhenthesysteminwhichthesocialinnovationis
operatingisquitemature;thatis,mostoftheavailableresourcesandcapitalareinvestedintoexisting,
andgenerallyonlyafewdominantones.Consequently,withonlyafewfirmsholdingmostofthe
resources,andmostoftheresourcesflowingin,outandbetweenonlythesefewfirmsformore
matureproducts,verylittlediversityexists.Productsarecost‐effectiveandtheirdevelopmentiswell
establishedandefficientbythisphase.Therefore,asinnovationsentertheconservationphasewe
suggestthemostsuccessfulpolicyleversarethosethatallowaninnovationtofitintheexistingmature
systemratherthanradicallyalterit.Policiesthatprovidesubtlechangesinthesupplychainor
infrastructurerelatedtotheinnovationareimportantinthisphase.Tosomeextent,thesocialimpact
ofthesepoliciesandtheinnovationstheysupportismoreincrementalratherthantransformative.
Policiesalsomaysupporttheinevitablecreativedestructionordisturbancethatwillenterthe
systembyensuringacontinuedinvestmentinthenextinnovation.Governmentincentivesfor
environmentaltechnologies,suchashybridcars,geothermalheatingsystemsforresidences,water
andenergyefficientappliancesarethebestexampleforthisphasebecausetheyhelptocreatea
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page18
marketormarketmechanismsforinnovationsthatinmanyways,arealreadyestablished.For
instance,theincentivesfromgovernmentsforhybridcarsareforanitemthatalreadyhavebeen
introducedtothemarketandhasbeenrelativelyprovenasatechnology,although,knowledgewith
theproductwillcontinuetogrowforsometimeyet.Thepolicyisnotmeanttosupporttheinnovation
inthephasewhenitwasfirsttryingtocreatethehybrid.Itisonlyusefulifappliedatasuitablephase
anditisevenmoreusefulifinvestmentissimultaneouslymadeintothedevelopmentoffuture
technologies.Similarly,theCityofVictoria’sadjustmentofthesizeofsomestreetparkingspacesto
suitSmartcarsisanexampleofalteringinfrastructuretosupportstheadoptionofanexisting
innovation
Whilethisphasemaysoundlessdifficultthansomeoftheotherphasesorlesslikelytoleadto
significantchange,thisphaserequiresanextremelystrongcapacitytoadoptinnovations.Theother
phasesmayrequiregovernmenttocreatepoliciesthatsupport,enableorstimulatecreativenew
ideas,butthisphaserequiresagovernmenttodrawonandabsorbtheinnovationsandtheknowledge
surroundingit.Inmanycases,theinnovationmaynothavecomefromwithinthatspecificnationor
state,butratheristheresultofexternalefforts.Thecapacitytorecognizetheseinnovations,adopt
theminatimelyfashion,andadaptthemasneededtothelocalcontextisreferredtoasthe
“absorptivecapacity”(Cohen&Levinthal,1990).Thusfar,marketandconsumer‐basedincentivesare
oneoftheclearestexampleswherewecanseegovernmentpolicysupportingadoptionandcreatinga
marketforanexistinginnovation.
Proposition:Inthisphase,innovationsalreadyexistandhavebeentestedsuccessfully.Theneedexists
toadopttheinnovationandestablishitasthenewstatusquo.Policiesthatcreateamarketordemand
fortheinnovation,whetheritisanidea,program,ortechnologyarenecessary.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page19
ConclusionandFutureResearch:
Inclosing,itwasarguedthatcertainpolicieshavegreaterimpactatspecificpointsoftime,and
thatrecognizingthedistinctphasesofsocialinnovationiscentraltounderstandingwhichpolicywillbe
mostsuitable.Thepapermovesscholarshiptowardsatheoryofphaseappropriategovernment
interventionsusingresiliencetheoryasameanstounderstandthecharacteristicsofeachphase.
Ultimately,weputforthfourpropositionsaboutpolicyoptionstosupportthedifferentphases
ofsocialinnovation,includingthefollowing:
Proposition:Whencomplexproblemsneedtobebetterunderstoodandnewideasareneeded,
processesthatenableinteractionsandbuildtrustbetweenpreviouslydisconnectedgroupsarehelpful
tothegenerationofsocialinnovations.
Proposition:policiesthatnotonlymotivateandrewardthegenerationofinnovativeideasbutalso
involveanevaluationprocesstoselectamongstthemanypotentialinnovations,isoneofthemore
successfuloptionsforthereorganizationphase.
Proposition:Policiesthatenablesocialinnovationsandtheinnovatorstoaccessresources,including
social,intellectualandfinancial,arecriticaltoscalingoutinnovationsfromlocalsuccessestobroader
systemicchange.Thesepoliciesofteninvolvedproactivelyaddressingstructuralbarrierstosocial
innovation,butmustbeveryspecificsoasnottoopenopportunitiesfornegativeorneedless
exploitationofscarceresources.
Proposition:Inthisphase,innovationsalreadyexistandhavebeentestedsuccessfully.Theneedexists
toadopttheinnovationandestablishitasthenewstatusquo.Policiesthatcreateamarketordemand
fortheinnovation,whetheritbeanidea,program,ortechnologyarenecessary.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page20
Futureresearchneedstoexaminepolicyinstruments,includingsuccessesandfailures,fora
detailedempiricalevaluationofourpropositions.Additionally,researchneedstoexplorehowpolicy
instrumentscanbecombined,ifthereareindicatorsthatcanhelpgovernmentstomoreclearly
determinewhichlevertousewhen,andweareundertakingotherworktoexaminequestionsabout
theextenttowhichpolicyfromthestateisakeyfactorinsuccessfulsocialinnovationsversusthe
leadershipskillsofasocialentrepreneurorthemobilizationofnetworks.Areasofinterestmayinclude
socialfinance,educationandpublicawarenesscampaignsassourcesofsocialinnovations.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page21
References
Bodin,Ö.,andCrona,B.2009.Theroleofsocialnetworksinnaturalresourcegovernance:What
relationalpatternsmakeadifference?GlobalEnvironmentalChange,19:366‐374.
Bornstein,S.2007.Howtochangetheworld:Socialentrepreneursandthepowerofnewideas.Oxford,
UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Burt,R.S.1992.StructuralHoles.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Burt,R.S.2004.Structuralholesandgoodideas.AmericanJournalofSociology,110:349–399.
Cohen,W.,andLevinthal,D.1990.AbsorptiveCapacity:Anewperspectiveonlearningandinnovation.
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35:128‐152.
Dees,G.1998.Themeaningof"socialentrepreneurship".
Folke,C.,Hahn,T.,Olsson,P.,andNorberg,J.2005.Adaptivegovernanceofsocial‐ecologicalsystems.
AnnualReviewofEnvironmentandResources,30:441‐473
Gilsing,V.A.,andDuysters,G.M.2008.Understandinginexplorationnetworks–structuraland
relationalembeddednessjointlyconsidered.Technovation,28:693‐708.
Gunderson,L.H.,andHolling,C.S.editors.2002.Panarchy:Understandingtransformationsinhuman
andnaturalsystems.Washington:IslandUniversityPress.
Leadbeater,C.1997.Theriseofthesocialentrepreneur.London,UK:DEMOSOpenAccess.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page22
Mason,W.A.,Jones,A.,andGoldstone,R.L.2008.Propagationofinnovationsinnetworkedgroups.
JournalofExperimentalPsychology,137(3):422‐433.
Nicholls,A.editor.2006.Socialentrepreneurship:newmodelsofsustainablesocialchange.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Olsson,P.,Folke,C.,andBerkes,F.2004a.Adaptivecomanagementforbuildingresilienceinsocial‐
ecologicalsystems.EnvironmentalManagement,34(1):75‐90.
Olsson,P.,Folke,C.,andHahn,T.2004b.Social‐ecologicaltransformationforecosystemmanagement:
Thedevelopmentofadaptiveco‐managementofawetlandlandscapeinsouthernsweden.Ecology
andSociety,9(4[online]).
Olsson,P.,Gunderson,L.H.,Carpenter,S.R.,Ryan,P.,Lebel,L.,Folke,C.,andHolling,C.S.2006.
Shootingtherapids:navigatingtransitionstoadaptivegovernanceofsocial‐ecologicalsystems.11(1):
18[online].
Schumpeter,J.1942.Capitalism,socialism,anddemocracy.NewYork:HarperPublishing.
Uzzi,B.1997.Socialstructureandcompetitionininterfirmnetworks:theparadoxofembeddedness.
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,42(1):35‐67.
Voß,J.P.,Bauknecht,D.,andKemp,R.2006.Reflexivegovernanceforsustainabledevelopment.
Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgarPublishingLtd.
Westley,F.R.2008.TheSocialInnovationDynamic.PapersonSocialInnovationSeries.Waterloo,ON:
SiG@Waterloo.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page23
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page24
AuthorBiographies
Michele‐LeeMoore
Michele‐LeeMooreisaPhDcandidateinGlobalGovernanceattheBalsillieSchoolofInternationalAffairsandaMcConnellFellowatSiG@Waterloo.Herresearchinterestsincludeglobalenvironmentalgovernance,networks,socialinnovation,andthemobilizationofdifferentformsofscientificknowledgeintopolicyandpractice.PreviouslyawaterstrategyadvisorfortheGovernmentofBritishColumbia,Michele‐LeecompletedherMScattheUniversityofVictoria.
FrancesWestley
FrancesWestleyistheJ.W.McConnellChairinSocialInnovationattheUniversityofWaterloo.Herresearch,writing,andteachingcentersonsocialinnovationincomplexproblemdomains,withparticularemphasisonleadershipandmanagingstrategicchange.HermostrecentbookentitledGettingtoMaybe(RandomHouse,2006)focusesontheinter‐relationshipofindividualandsystemdynamicsinsocialinnovationandtransformation.Dr.WestleyreceivedherPhDandMAinSociologyfromMcGillUniversity.
OlaTjornbo
OlaTjornboiscurrentlyaMcConnellFellowatSiG@Waterloo.OlahasbeendeeplyengagedinSiG’scasewritingproject,helpingtodevelopaSiGcasewritingtemplatetoassistresearchersandpractitionersinutilizingasocialinnovationtheoreticalframeworktolookatandunderstandexamplesofinnovativeprojects.Olahasalsobeguntoputthetemplateintopractice,developingtwoteachingcasesbasedonaseriesofqualitativeinterviewsconductedinBritishColumbiainApril2008.
CarinHolroyd
Dr.CarinHolroydisafacultymemberwithSiG@WaterlooaswellasanAssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofPoliticalScience,UniversityofWaterloo.SheisaSeniorFellow,CentreforInternationalGovernanceInnovationandaSeniorResearchAnalystwiththeAsia‐PacificFoundation(basedinVancouver,B.C.)CarinpreviouslytaughtatuniversitiesinCanada,NewZealandandJapan.Shehasbeenco‐PresidentoftheJapanStudiesAssociationofCanadaandisoneofthecoordinatorsofthe2008JapanStudiesAssociationofCanadaConference,slatedforWaterlooinOctober2008.Dr.Holroyd'sfieldofresearchinterestincludesgovernment‐businessrelations,Canada‐Japanrelations,internationaltradeandnationalinnovationpolicies.
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page25
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page26
AboutSocialInnovationGeneration
SocialInnovationGeneration(SiG)isacollaborativepartnershipbetweentheMontreal‐based
J.W.McConnellFamilyFoundation,theUniversityofWaterloo,theMaRSDiscoveryDistrictinToronto,
theCausewaynationalsocialfinanceproject,andthePLANInstituteinVancouver.Itseekstoaddress
Canada’ssocialandecologicalchallengesbycreatingacultureofcontinuoussocialinnovation.The
projectisdesignedtoenhancetheconditionsforsocialinnovationinCanada,includingproviding
practicalnewsupportforsocialinnovatorsincultivatingorganizationsandinitiatives.
TheSiGprojectisfocusedveryspecificallyonsocialinnovationsthathavedurability,impact
andscale.Ourinterestisonprofoundchangeprocessesandouroverallaimistoencourageeffective
methodsofaddressingpersistentsocialproblemsonanationalscale.
Tofindoutmore,pleasevisitwww.sigeneration.ca
AbouttheUniversityofWaterloo
SiG@WaterlooisanimportantpartnerinthenationalSiGcollaborationandishousedinthe
FacultyofArtsattheUniversityofWaterloo,recognizedasoneofCanada'smostinnovative
universities.Injusthalfacentury,theUniversityofWaterloo,locatedattheheartofCanada's
TechnologyTriangle,hasbecomeoneofCanada’sleadingcomprehensiveuniversitieswith28,000full
andpart‐timestudentsinundergraduateandgraduateprograms.Inthenextdecade,theuniversityis
committedtobuildingabetterfutureforCanadaandtheworldbychampioninginnovationand
collaborationtocreatesolutionsrelevanttotheneedsoftodayandtomorrow.Waterloo,ashometo
theworld’slargestpost‐secondaryco‐operativeeducationprogram,embracesitsconnectionstothe
worldandencouragesenterprisingpartnershipsinlearning,research,anddiscovery.
Tofindoutmore,pleasevisitwww.uwaterloo.ca
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page27
TheLoop,theLens,andtheLesson–WorkingPaperNo.003 SiG@Waterloo|Page28
[email protected].,Suite202
Kitchener,ONN2G1B1
T:5198884490F:5195787168
W:www.sig.uwaterloo.ca
Top Related