Transcending the pyramid: opportunity co-creation for social innovation

Silva, Muthu De; Khan, Zaheer; Vorley, Tim; Zeng, Jing

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.12.001

Cited by 47 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(130 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4.2.1.2 Partnerships. SEs are more effective when working in collaboration since the partners facilitate the identification of consumer needs (De Silva et al, 2019), access to resources, and can develop SIs based on the opportunities identified, but not developed, by the SE due to capacity or ability issues (Phillips et al, 2017;. Biggeri et al (2017) for example, confirmed the hypothesis that the high level of social capital and trust between the different actors of the social ecosystem has a positive influence on the SE's ability to create SI.…”

Section: An Integrated Framework Of Social Innovation Managementmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Anther recommendation, mainly in the scaling phase, is to encourage people or organisations to seek solutions to their private interests that, at the same time, serve the public's well-being (Zainol et al, 2019). Some examples are the valuing of small producers due to growing demand for organic products (healthy lifestyles) (Zivojinovic et al, 2019), and addressing social challenges in the bottom of the community pyramid through the response to altruistic needs of customers at the top (De Silva et al, 2019). 4.2.3.2 Political support.…”

Section: Social Innovation Drivers In Social Enterprisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social innovation drivers in social enterprises: systematic review

João-Roland

Granados

2020

JSBED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeIdentify the drivers of social innovation (SI) that bring together the main management tools and approaches associated with the creation of SI in social enterprises (SEs).Design/methodology/approachA systematic review was developed in the Web of Science, Scopus and EBSCO databases, using the keywords: social innovation, social enterprise and management. After analysis of quality and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 54 articles were selected for full analysis.FindingsSI process was systemised into four steps: mapping and development, consolidation, scaling up and evaluation. The drivers of SI were mapped and classified into three main factors: contextual, organisational and managerial.Practical implicationsIn organisational factors, business model was emphasised, as well as partnerships, participatory culture and intrapreneurship, adequate levels of bricolage and continuous learning. The management factors included the characteristics of the entrepreneur/innovator and managerial practices, where those that facilitate teamwork and the participation of all involved are best suited. In contextual factors, the highlight was the need for support from policy makers; community participation and demand for innovations that consider local context and usability.Originality/valueThis study connects previously scattered knowledge in a generic model of SI, highlighting routines and processes used, and provides a starting point for innovators and social entrepreneurs in the complex, uncertain and often unknown process of SI. Additionally, several research gaps were identified to be addressed by future research in the context of SI management.

show abstract

Section: An Integrated Framework Of Social Innovation Managementmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Social Innovation Drivers In Social Enterprisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social innovation drivers in social enterprises: systematic review

João-Roland

Granados

2020

JSBED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rooted in the notion of social entrepreneurship (Choi and Majumdar, 2014), these organizations play a significant role in society by innovatively combining market logics with benevolent orientations (Mair and Marti, 2006;Littlewood and Khan, 2018;Phillips et al, 2015;Haigh, Kennedy, and Walker, 2015;Weerawardena, Mcdonald, and Mort, 2010). Among different types of SPOs, International Social Purpose Organizations (hereafter, ISPOs) that create value across developing and developed markets have received recent scholarly interest (Marshall, 2011;Tukamushaba et al, 2011;De Silva, Khan, Vorley and Zeng 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Business model innovation by international social purpose organizations: The role of dynamic capabilities

Silva

Al‐Tabbaa

Khan

2021

Journal of Business Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the role played by dynamic capabilities and business model innovation in international social purpose organizations (ISPOs) 1 operating across developing and developed countries. Utilizing a qualitative multiple case study methodology, we identify a set of dynamic capabilities deployed and leveraged by these organizations for business model innovation in order to achieve their dual mission of social and economic value creation. The findings highlight unique micro-foundational capabilities of the founders that are vitally important to perceive social challenges as opportunities for ISPOs to sense socially and economically intertwined prospects. We discuss the specific organizational-level capabilities-at both the production and selling sites-that are developed and utilized by ISPOs to seize opportunities by combining competing social and economic logics. In relation to transformation, ISPOs develop ecosystem-wide production-and market-related capabilities-in both developing and developed countries-that enable them to scale-up their dual mission business model through co-creation.

show abstract

“…Embodying principles of decentralized collaboration in local places, dispersed institutes function as knowledge bridges to connect research and information produced within HEIs to communities of practice in nonprofits, NGOs, commercial enterprises and local/regional governments and communities (Almeida et al , 2012; Cockshut, 2020; McBeth, 2018). Because these dispersed institutes are positioned closer to stakeholders at “the bottom of the pyramid,” they are better situated to facilitate bi-directional exchange and co-creative learning with social or community partners (Benneworth and Cunha, 2015; De Silva et al , 2019). As decentralized units, they are well-positioned to facilitate community-campus collaborations by engaging in horizontal processes that build on the divergent expertise contributed by academic and practice partners; with practitioners placed to “influence institutional systems from the periphery, whilst others influence from inside within specific [academic] departments” (Munk et al , 2017).…”

Section: How Dispersed Institutes Add Value To Social Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentering social innovation: the value of dispersed institutes in higher education

Lough¹

2021

SEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to illustrate how dispersed institutes of social innovation operating as intermediary actors within higher education institutions (HEIs) may help overcome many of the institutional bureaucracies and structures that inhibit social innovation in higher education. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews core conditions for social innovation, along with the opportunities, challenges and tensions that emerge as HEIs work to apply these conditions in practice. It then describes how dispersed institutes enact principles of decentralization, localization and collaboration in pursuit of social innovation. Findings Five main ways that dispersed institutes enable social innovation were identified in this review, including bridging academic–practice divides, enabling co-creation and co-production with users, facilitating experiential and co-curricular education, supporting interdisciplinary collaborations and generating customized and place-based solutions. Practical implications Findings suggest four strategies that HEIs can use to support dispersed institutes, including prioritizing social purpose organizations as institutional partners, incentivizing public engagement and collaboration, leveraging their convening power to strengthen global networks among dispersed institutes and using budgeting models that reflect the importance of creating both economic and social value. Originality/value Although innovation labs in HEIs have long been a feature of natural sciences and technology services, they are still comparatively new for the social sciences and humanities. This paper addresses a gap in the literature on the value contributed by dispersed institutes of social innovation operating within HEIs such as living labs, makerspaces, incubators and excubators, social innovation parks, cooperation accelerators and technology transfer offices.

show abstract

Transcending the pyramid: opportunity co-creation for social innovation

Cited by 47 publications

References 77 publications

Social innovation drivers in social enterprises: systematic review

Social innovation drivers in social enterprises: systematic review

Business model innovation by international social purpose organizations: The role of dynamic capabilities

Decentering social innovation: the value of dispersed institutes in higher education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About