The technology sector is known for its strong innovation. Just think what life was like a few decades ago, without smart phones, laptops, social networks, and when outings were booked through landlines and with a summer meeting point at the ‘nivea ball’ on the beach. In no time at all, technology has changed. Now we can transfer money in a second via our phone number, watch films without the fines for not returning tapes, and create playlists that can be shared and accessed at any time and place. And do we consider all of this to be innovations? No, they're a given, they've become universal and part of our daily lives. We incorporate these changes into our daily lives and, in a short space of time, they become commonplace, and we wait for the next technological innovations that will transform our lives.
And in the social sphere, is the same true? Before the industrial revolution, there were no crèches, because women had the assumed role of full-time mothers and housewives. With the industrial revolution everything changed, and in order to integrate women into the labour market there was a need to provide for their children, and informal solutions emerged in the form of crèches. Later, these informal responses became institutionalised and today we look at a crèche not as the great innovation it was in the 19th century, but as something perfectly commonplace.
So, in the social field, when can we say that we are dealing with an innovation? And even more difficult, when do we stop considering it an innovation? Many entrepreneurial people who contact IRIS as a social innovation incubator have precisely this question: is my project a social innovation?
Bearing in mind that social innovation focuses on creative solutions to solve serious and neglected social and environmental problems, it's easy to realise that through consistent research we could understand whether anyone (in the country or the world) has already done or is doing something identical, and gauge the potential for innovation and novelty of a solution. Often this research is not done consistently and the self-attribution of ‘innovation’ comes from the simple fact that the entrepreneur has never come across an identical solution.
And then we can broaden the spectrum: can a solution or project implemented in the US be ‘imported’ to another country and be considered innovative there? Can a solution that has already been tested for young people be implemented with children and be considered innovative for that audience? Can a project that is widespread in the north of the country be expanded to the south and be considered an innovation in that geographical area? These are often called incremental innovations.
And once a project has begun its mission to solve a serious social or environmental problem in an innovative way, when is it no longer considered an innovation? When it has spread throughout the country? When 3, 5, 10 years have passed? When, in the meantime, other even more innovative solutions have been created? When does this cycle end? This is a very difficult question to clarify.
And in this somewhat dubious conceptual terrain, what can social entrepreneurs do to classify themselves as innovators? And how can the other players in the ecosystem (beneficiaries, investors, partners) understand whether they are dealing with an innovation? Here are some suggestions that come from IRIS' experience in accompanying various social entrepreneurship projects with different innovation profiles:
- Consistent and continuous research. Rather than ‘I don't know’ or ‘I've never heard of it’, it's important to ensure that very consistent market research is carried out, based on the question: how do the people who currently have this social problem in the world solve it? It's very difficult that there aren't already very diverse solutions targeting a particular social problem, especially if it affects many people in a serious way. And it's even more difficult that during the course of a project, other parallel initiatives don't emerge that are also different, innovative (perhaps more effective?). This prospection must be continuous.
- Consider partnerships. If there are already excellent solutions tested in other contexts, why not invest in ‘importing’ these ideas and in the accelerated learning that comes with an initiative's history of mistakes and successes? As a general rule, this solution brings more speed and consistency to innovations, especially because of the network of contacts and learning that comes from scratch, accompanied by recognition and validation that is difficult to achieve, and which is fundamental to leveraging a successful project.
- Tell the story very clearly. When did the project start? What has been its journey? If the initiative is more than 10 years old, will the founders and team be comfortable with the term ‘innovation’ or more aligned with the narrative of ‘when we started 10 years ago, we were pioneers’.
These are very simple suggestions, but they are too often ignored by social entrepreneurs who, with an extreme focus on solving the social problem, overlook the importance of looking around and understanding and re-evaluating their positioning.
Finally, is innovation really that relevant? Rather than inventing the wheel, it's important to use it to transform and accelerate the world! What good is the ‘innovation’ label if it isn't used to promote growth and improve quality of life in a consistent and real way?
