Tag Archives: Social Innovation

My Latest Insight about Innovation

by

I’ve been reading tons about innovation – particularly social innovation.  I have lists of definitions,criteria, descriptions, and examples of innovation and social innovation. 

But my latest insight came yesterday when I was listening to the a16z Podcast on my way to visit friends.

Amidst the techno jibber-jabber, most of which went over my head, the hosts had a conversation about two types of innovation they see in the tech landscape;  sustaining innovations and disruptive innovations.

A ‘Sustaining’ Innovation occurs within the existing environments and aids to reinforce the existing business model.   Moving online shopping from the desktop computer to the mobile applications on the smartphone. 

A ‘Disruptive’ Innovation will interrupt the existing business model.  Online media and news sources have eviscerated the revenue sources curbside newspapers traditionally used to run their businesses, forcing them to change their business models to survive.

Applying these definitions to the social sector would lead to some valuable, insightful conversations while developing approaches, programs, or interventions aimed at addressed complex problems.

Social Sector Sustaining Innovation – would aid to reinforce the status quo.

Social Sector Disruptive Innovation – would disrupt the status quo.

So a  conversation might begin with the question; 

To what extent is our idea (approach,intervention, service or program) a Sustaining Innovation and to what extent is it a Disruptive Innovation?

To be clear, this kind of conversation is most valuable when the group:

  1. Is open to being honest with themselves about the way(s) in which the idea might be contributing to the problem they are trying to address. 
  2. Sets aside any preconceived notions about either type of innovation being inherently better than the other.

If you are similar to a couple of my friends, and enjoy the techno jibber-jabber, I certainly encourage you to check out this podcast. 

Even if the techno jibber-jabber is not your bailiwick, the podcast is safe way to listen to folks who talk tech without feeling embarrassed about not knowing what’s going on part of the time.

Link to the episode:  a16z Podcast: Technological Trends, Capital, and Internet ‘Disruption’

Etmanski: Advocate with Empathy

by

When people ask what it is like to work in government I get them to imagine all the work for all parts of government as a giant slow-moving stream.   Since the stream is moving so slowly, it takes deliberate choice to expend the effort to actually get anywhere.   95% of government employees are happy to bob along like driftwood at the whims of the stream.  The other 5% are problem-solvers in boats trying to make a difference by paddling.  Inevitably though, the boats reach a place where the driftwood has clogged the stream and the paddlers must decide whether to work through it or bail out for the shore.

After reading Etmanski’s Advocate for Empathy, I realize my analogy isn’t entirely fair because it leaves out one important group.  There are some pieces of driftwood, tired of bending to the will of the stream, that want to climb into the boats to paddle.

But climbing into the boat means accepting three realities.  First, we can’t change the pace of the steam.  It is so cluttered with competing requests that it can be difficult to tell which direction the stream is flowing.  Second, we can’t change the technology of boats and paddles.  Even though voters expect government to move more rapidly by utilizing motors and GPS, they don’t want to pay for it.  Third, everyone can see you’re paddling effort from the shore and offer their critiques and condemnations.

The result is an intensely risk-averse environment rife with fear, stifling opportunities for innovation, change and impact.

Despite this, people want to paddle, so how do we help them into the boats?  

Etmanski points to Solution-Based Advocacy which focuses on solutions over criticisms and improving the ability of government to make better decisions.  It means acknowledging we are all in the same boat, government included, so we may as well learn paddling techniques from each other.

Five Characteristics of Solution Based Advocacy

  • “Searching for a Heart of Gold” – Taking the time to look beyond what our political leaders do, to learn about who they are.
  • “Using Strategic Inquiry” – Aligning your agenda with the government agenda by “…discovering the priorities, language and tools of the group you are trying to convince…” (p.116)
  • “Cultivating a Network of Champions” – Although we think one champion is great, it just isn’t enough.
  • “Solving Problems Together” – Shifting government from the role of parent to partner.
  • “Doing it Themselves” – Regardless of how amazing the idea is, there will always be opposing interests being considered decision-makers.  Forging ahead without them can create the space they need to champion your idea and your success in the face of opposition.

Are you a paddler or are you driftwood?

 

Impact: Six Patterns to Spread Your Social Innovation by Al Etmanski is a guide for social innovators to move their idea from localized success to broader systemic impact.

Etmanski: Think and Act Like a Movement

by

Al Etmanski’s book assumes readers are striving to achieve real systemic change and his first pattern articulates the importance of movements.  For Etmanski, “Institutional change cannot happen without a movement” (P.49) and “A movement is composed of a million small acts.” (P.48).

This is not new.  Change occurs when enough people are moved to action for a long enough period that it finally happens. Gladwell talks about this type of change in Tipping Point.

The new piece for me was Etmanski’s insistence that systemic change requires us to look beyond our immediate context and missions to the broader goals of the movement. As an example you might identify a gap in mental health support for veterans. To impact the system creating the gap, Etmanski believes you should align your efforts with broader movements like The Movement for Global Mental Health or The Canadian Mental Health Association.

Think back to the occasions when you were involved in developing a mission and vision for your organization.  Was the movement a part of those discussions and considerations?  Was a movement objective devised alongside the mission and vision?

It’s not unusual for us to focus on the local context where we can see the ways our work makes a difference.  Spending time and energy on thinking about how we will contribute to the ‘movement’ seems like an abstract, ambiguous, pointless task.

To keep conversations about developing a movement objective meaningful, Etmanski provides some loose boundaries in his characteristics of an effective social justice movement.

Five Characteristics of an Effective Social Justice Movement.

  1. “They ignite our imaginations” – Do you contribute to a bold vision that disrupts the status quo?
  2. “They are multi-generational” – Do you contribute to movements as they reappear in new forms with successive generations?
  3. “They comprise small acts” – Do you contribute to the same thing that others feel compelled to contribute to?
  4. “They are self-organized” Do you contribute to something in which everyone sees the goal without a central command structure or charismatic champion?
  5. “They marry art and justice” – Do you contribute to something in which art has created new ways of seeing the world and transformed what we see as a possibility?

 

Would you say efforts to help the flood of Syrian Refugees is a movement?  Or the Arab Spring? Or Occupy Wall Street?

 

Impact: Six Patterns to Spread Your Social Innovation by Al Etmanski is a guide for social innovators to move their idea from localized success to broader systemic impact.

 

Making Your Idea Matter

by

Having repeatedly heard folks in social innovation circles refer to Al Etmanski, I felt compelled to pick up his book Impact: Six Patterns to Spread Your Social Innovation.  It’s intended to guide innovators after their idea has been mushed, mashed, shaped, sanded, polished and tested.

How does a social innovator shepherd an idea from local success to broader systemic impact?

I recommend picking up a copy for his stories illustrating many of the ideas I’ll be posting.  A quick, accessible, useful read.

Etmanski opens by saying we all have the ability, capacity and responsibility to innovate. We can’t escape by saying ‘I’m not a big idea thinker‘ or ‘I’m a doer not a thinker‘. Further, he identifies three types of innovators needed to spread an idea, no matter how amazing, to achieve broader systemic impact.

Disruptive Innovators: have the unwavering belief that we can do better by challenging the the way it’s always been done..

Bridging Innovators: have the credibility and networks to highlight the benefits of the disruptive innovator’s new idea for institutions and policy makers.

Receptive Innovators: have access and knowledge of the system to change policy, law or funding to make the idea possible. (also known as intrapreneurs).

Which type of innovator are you?  Even more importantly, do you know anyone from the other two types of innovator?

 

Podcast Pick: SSIR – Whose Story Are We Telling? (Andrew Means)

by

Before hearing Andrew Means on the SSIR podcast, I would listen to the stories Not-for-Profit organizations tell about their work and couldn’t help but be inspired.  Hearing the exceptional rags-to-riches story about a person experiencing homelessness that used an NPO’s employment program and now manages a local million dollar company would move me to open my wallet.

Another common narrative is based in data.  After hearing that upon completion of the employment program 85% of participants (people experiencing homelessness) became employed, I became convinced the program is ‘doing something right‘.

Look more closely at the stories and you’ll notice they have two common deficiencies.

First, they fail to link the complex nature of the problem to the need for their program.  As a complex problem, homelessness is multi-faceted with causes sprouting from racism, poverty, abuse, family violence, mental illness, and addiction to name a few.  Are you able to articulate how the employment program addresses some of these broader facets of homelessness?

Second, the stories tell us what has been accomplished in the past but fail to articulate why it matters for the future.  Has the story about the employment program taught us about the ways in which being employed will impact people experiencing homelessness in the future?

Means believes our stories need to go beyond our comfortable narratives to include how the program/organization has impacted the broader systemic context.

Yes. Impact.  When I think about measuring impact I am immediately overwhelmed by where to start while remembering past attempts rife with pitfalls and blind alleys.  But Means believes it’s the key to making progress on complex, systemic, nasty, intractable social problems and he has a tidy little formula to get us started.

World with your organization – World without your organization = Impact of your organization 

Tidy to say. Still messy to do.  Fortunately Means gives us a couple tips and some excellent examples to get us thinking about starting.

Counter-factuals:  provide us with an accounting of what would have happened if the organization/program had never existed.  This would mean asking how many of the participants getting a job after completing the employment program would have landed employment anyway.  Then setting this against the 85%.

Displacement: helps us articulate how our work causes ripples in the broader context.  It might mean asking how many participants getting a job after completing the employment program are filling positions otherwise filled by equally qualified people already in the labour market and setting this against the 85% too.

Granted. Quantifying displacement and counter-factuals can be time-consuming and possibly expensive.  But Means is nudging us towards authentically confronting the gap between what we want to accomplish and what we are actually accomplishing. 

The result will be a community making more informed decisions about contributing towards outcomes we actually want to achieve rather than outcomes we pretend we are achieving.

When we join the crowd at the Annual General Meeting, it is with the expectation that we will hear the stories that make us feel like we are in the presence of something that matters.  But the stories are stuck in a rut.  They have a predictable plot involving the usual characters.  Think the movie Star Wars.

Means is nudging us towards telling more complex stories by introducing compelling storylines and new characters illustrating the relationship between complex problems and our work.  Think the movie Interstellar.

 

Whose Story Are We Telling? Featuring Andrew Means from Stanford Social Innovation Review Podcast