The Diffusion of Social Innovation by Krista Siniscarco

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere Kyle Averack2, Charisse Bennett2, Oktay Gül4, Wolfgang Machur3, Massimo Menichinelli1, and Krista Siniscarco2 1

Aalto University, 2Savannah College of Art and Design, 3University of Witten/Herdecke, 4University of Cologne.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract

Social innovation is an increasing common term being used to describe the new trend of developing publicprivate partnerships as a way of addressing large social issues within communities. While there are many pockets of social innovation around the world, the results of these efforts are mainly local. The lack of connection, communication, and collaboration between social innovation initiatives, organizations, and key players has hindered the diffusion of ideas, projects, and practices. The client for this project, CreateHere, was a non-profit organization founded in 2006 with the primary task of enhancing the arts, economic, and cultural development of Chattanooga, Tennessee. In collaboration with the client, a diverse global virtual team of graduate students set out to address the issue of identifying pockets of social innovation and the improvement and diffusion of social innovation process models. This study was a 25-week process comprised of research, analysis, synthesis, and prototyping stages. Data was collected through several primary research methods and data mining tools, such as Condor and Gephi, were used for coolhunting and coolfarming social innovation hub and incubators. The research ultimately led to the suggestion of developing an open-source platform for sharing social innovation ideas. The platform includes features such as a best-practices showcase and social networking functionality for building connections. This study concluded with a rough wire-frame prototype of the open-source platform, which can be further developed in future studies.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

1. Introduction 1.1 COINs Concept Windows of opportunity are very short in today's world of technology-driven innovation. Building high-performing teams is a rapidly growing current in business methodology to enhance quality and competitive advantage. Peter Gloor, research scientist at MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence, explains how one of the most productive engines of innovation is known as Collaborative Innovation Networks, or COINs. Its aim is to build organizations that are more “creative, productive, and efficient by applying principles of creative collaboration, knowledge sharing, and social networking” (Gloor, 2006, p. 10). Gloor explains how clouds of interest form around shared pursuits through self-organized cyberteams, which are defined as Internet based collaborative teams. As a community takes shape a meritocracy emerges within, establishing order based on the contribution and competence of these collaborative, mutually engaged members near the core of the swarm. Knowledge is synergistically created and shared in an environment of high trust and authenticity and where communication in direct-contact networks formulate the fabric that stabilizes the decentralized collaborative structure of COINs. 1.2 Course Goals In the course, students work as a team with partners in international locations to learn how to frame intangible factors as objectively as hard facts, establish communication structures and protocol, and experience collaboration in the effort to produce original, innovative ideas through COINs. 1.3 Initial Project Directives The team was initially presented with a brief description to provide direction and scope for the project. The description included four main objectives: While there are many pockets of social innovation around the world, the results of these efforts are mainly local. How might these localized nodes of action be connected and scale up social innovation in order (1) to diffuse and improve upon process models for social innovation and (2) to recruit and train more people in becoming social innovators? Goals for this project include using dynamic social network analysis (SNA) s/w tools to capture and interpret the “buzz” around social innovation in (3) identifying and/or constructing methods of analyzing/replicating/scaling identified transformative social innovations and also potentially building policy platforms from the analysis of social innovation; and (4) visualizing these pockets and finding ways to broker new connections. This can take the form of intervening to 'glue' them together, rather than build some new structural element with the idea that once contexts are threaded together successfully, new structures will emerge to support it. In this project, the team members will work with "CreateHere", a group of Chattanooga residents and new recruits working for arts, economic, and cultural development, unified by the belief that place-making and connectivity are the source of innovation. The initial project directives were further expanded upon through conversations with project advisor, Prof. Christine Miller and co-founder of CreateHere and client, Josh McManus. The team began their research process by outlining a mission and project goals. The team then divided into groups to Cool Hunt existing social innovation initiatives and incubators and outline successful projects. The team crafted a working definition of social innovation to ground and scope the study. The definition was inspired by various sources including Brown’s and Wyatt’s (2010) “Design Thinking for Social Innovation,” Murry’s and Muligan’s (2010) “The Open Book of Social Innovation,” Phills’, Deiglmeier’s and Miller’s (2008) “Rediscovering Social Innovation,” and Saul’s (2010) “Social Innovation, Inc.” Social innovation is novel ideas, methods, and organizations that meet social needs of all kinds where value created extends and strengthens civil society by improving the viability, sustainability, and resilience of the entire system.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

The team encountered some difficulties in finding social innovation initiatives through the Condor tool due to the lack of connection between the organizations and differences in language, mission, and descriptions. After further research and conversation with Josh McManus, the study took a slight change in direction. The team decided to pursue the idea of creating an open-source platform for sharing and showcasing social innovation ideas and projects.

Fig. 1. Static view of Condor search results for “social innovation” – 50 results, 2 degrees of separation.

1.4 Group Organization/Structure/Communication The Social Innovation COINs team was comprised of six graduate students from four universities, located in three countries. The team was selected through expressed interest in the “Social Innovation with ‘CreateHere’” project. Throughout the study communication was conducted primarily through email with weekly video conference calls through Google+ Hangout. The team was self-organized and elected not to select a project leader. A rotating schedule was created and each team member was responsible for creating an agenda and facilitating a weekly conference call. Responsibility was also shared for creating and delivering the status reports and presentations for the weekly plenary meetings of all COINs project teams. During the study various sub-groups were created within the larger team to divide responsibilities and research tasks. The sub-teams were created based on interests and existing skill sets. Given that three team members attended one institute, informal meeting and discussions also took place within that group. However, the team made a concerted effort to build partnerships across institutions. At the beginning of the study, the team was assigned a Gmail email address (coinproject1@gmail.com) to carbon copy on all email communications among team members and outreach to stakeholders in the study. At two separate points during the process an assessment of team communication was conducted through tools available in Condor. All teams were compared and the assessment tools were used as a way to show the networks, connections, betweenness of the teams and individual team members and evaluate the health of the team. The first assessment was run in the early weeks of the project, the second was run at the culmination. In the initial virtual mirror that was run on the groups, the social innovation team led the course in number of communications and registered positively on the sentiment analysis. This remained a steady trend throughout the project. The final virtual mirror showed the team with high centrality and betweenness. The social innovation team is identified in blue in figure 1.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

Fig 2. Condor email analysis, 2011-12 COINs projects.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

2. Background 2.1 Social Innovation Social innovation is grounded in the robust academic literature on innovation. Innovation defines its concepts more consistently and precisely, which forms an advantageous vantage point for examining the pursuit of positive social change. By going beyond sectors, levels of analysis, and methods, social innovation discovers strategies, tactics, and theories of change that produce lasting impact. To further define social innovation, the team first took a look into the meaning of innovation, and then examined the notion of “social”. It was important to observe that innovation is both a process and a product and an artifact cannot be considered an innovation without meeting two criteria. The first of these criteria is novelty. An innovation need not necessarily be original, but must be new to the subject or context of focus. The second criterion was improvement. The process or outcome of an innovation must be effective, more efficient, or more environmentally as well as more organizationally sustainable than preexisting structures. Other concepts of innovation exclude a critical component, the diffusion or adoption of the innovation, through which it comes to broader use (Deiglmeier, Miller, Phills. 2008. p. 37).

. The term “social” has been dynamically understood over the course of history. The word social is to describe a class of needs and problems. There tends to be greater consensus within societies about what constitutes a social need or problem and what kinds of social objectives are valuable. Social is also used to describe a kind of value that is distinct from financial or economic value. Many innovations create benefits for society, primarily through increasing employment, productivity, and economic growth. Yet that does not make these products social innovations because an innovation is truly social only if the balance is tilted toward social value and provides benefits to the public or to society as a whole-rather than private value-gains for entrepreneurs, investors, and ordinary (not disadvantaged) consumers. This reasoning bring us to our definition of Social Innovation: novel ideas, methods, and organizations that meet social needs of all kinds where value created extends and strengthens civil society by improving the viability, sustainability, and resilience of the entire system. 2.2 CreateHere CreateHere has served as the primary example, as well as the client, for the research and analysis of Social Innovation over the course of this study. The non-profit was founded at the beginning of 2006 with the primary task of enhancing the arts, economic, and cultural development of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Helen Johnson and Josh McManus founded CreateHere, with a five-year endowment to transform Chattanooga into a hub for creativity and entrepreneurship by attracting and retaining talent. Within the five-year timeline, they were able to create several successful initiatives that continue to thrive and transform Chattanooga. The primary goal for most of CreateHere’s initiatives is business and job creation to support and increase the economic development of Chattanooga. Along with this, another important goal has been community involvement and changing the local perspective. By creating Stand, what turned into the world’s largest community visioning process with over 26,000 surveys, new priorities for the community were identified (public education, crime, jobs, and the environment). Through these new priorities additional initiatives were born, such as Take Root. Take Root lead to the creation of the Citizen Forester Program, planting over 1,400 trees, and the creation of jobs to accomplish this. Perhaps one of the most successful initiatives that has graduated out of CreateHere is MainX24. MainX24 was started in 2007 to demonstrate that Chattanooga has the potential to be a 24 hour community, and has since grow to include over 5,000 participants and 80 individual events. While CreateHere initiatives have impressive success statistics, their impacts are limited to the city of Chattanooga. What if these projects can be replicated in communities across the country? How are successful Social Innovation projects dispersed into other communities? How are these projects customized to fit the various needs of other communities?

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

3. Project Goals and Mission As mentioned in the above section 1.3 in the first weeks of the project, the scope and direction slightly changed from the initial directives. The team outlined the goals of the study as such: 1. Define social innovation. a. Identify process models for social innovation Identify pockets of active social innovation . Who’s talking about what: Capture the buzz around social innovation Identify and/or construct methods for diffusion (analyzing/replicating/scaling) of social innovation . How might social innovation projects be scaled up? a. How might the social innovation COINs recruit and train more social innovators? b. How might social innovation COINs be visualized and connected? 3.1 Hypotheses Based on preliminary primary research, the team hypothesized that social innovation initiatives are not currently scaling or diffusing due to lack of communication and connection of social innovation organizations. This hypothesis proved true and lead to the idea of creating an open-source platform for social innovation as a way to foster partnerships and collaboration.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

4. Methodology 4.1 Survey The team created a short survey to determine the resources, barriers, and support required by Social Innovation projects to scale their impact. Through open-ended questions, in-depth responses were acquired that provided details for the team to analyze and better understand the needs of these projects. Multiple-choice questions were used to gain a sense of priority from the respondents. Team leaders of all CreateHere projects were approached as an initial starting point and focus of this research. Team members also outreached to additional community projects, they were personally familiar with, to increase the diversity of responses. A list of survey questions can be found in the Appendix. 4.2 Condor/Gephi In order to accomplish the goals set forth in this project, two different social network analyses tools were used— Gephi (Bastian, Heymann, & Jacomy, 2009) and Condor (Gloor & Zhao, 2004). The objectives of using these tools was to analyze the “buzz” around social innovation and find a way to help increase this buzz. An internal analysis of the email data CreateHere provided was conducted. The email archive was comprised of approximately 22,000 messages from the period of 02/21/2010 – 12/15/2011. These emails were analyzed with Gephi and Condor to find the main participants in the different projects organized by CreateHere in Chattanooga. In Condor, the features “Mail Collector” and “Coolpeople” were used. In Gephi the emails were imported through the “Import Spigots” feature. A second goal of the email analyses was to see if the communication behavior within the CreateHere organization looks like clusters of so called “stars” or if the communication behavior is more like a “galaxy,” in which most participants are communicating with each other. The purpose of this analysis is to see if a platform on which the participants of Social Innovation initiatives can communicate and share their ideas and experiences as needed or if the communication behavior is so pronounced that there is no need of such technology. Lastly, the tool “Coolpeople” in Condor was used to analyze the buzz outside of the CreateHere organization and their projects. The goal was to find participants who are active with the topic of social innovation and who could be contacted with our proposed platform. The “Coolpeople” tool allows for the possibility to find people which are associated with word pairs or other characteristics like towns, names of organizations etc.. This feature is divided into two parts. First, there is the option to run the search in the web and/or in the social network. Due to the fact that the social network analysis was not yet fully functional, only a web search was conducted. For the web search, word pairs associated with social innovation and drawn from the CreateHere email analysis, such as “Social initiative”, “Social enterprise” and “Social innovation” were used. With these three word pairs the buzz around social innovation initiatives and enterprises were analyzed. 4.3 email Content Analysis In addition to the analysis of the email archives through Condor and Gephi provided by CreateHere staff, analysis of the email content was also conducted through the software application WORDij (Danowski, 2009). A random sample of 200 of the 22,000+ emails was selected for the analysis. Through WORDij the most frequently occurring words and word pairs were highlighted for analysis and synthesis. This information was used to inform the functionality and content of the social innovation open-source platform. Commons words and phrases were also taken from the email analysis and used in Condor searches to broaden the scope in search of social innovation initiatives and projects.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

4.4 Evaluation of Open Source Platforms Team members researched various existing open-source platforms. The research included the evaluation of each platform’s functionality, organization of information, usability, and tools for collaboration. Platforms that were assessed included: • MERLOT - a platform for sharing learning materials, objects and assignments. o http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm • Kickstarter – a platform for crowd-source funding of creative projects. o http://www.kickstarter.com/ • Kiva – a platform for building connections and receiving loans to alleviate poverty. o http://www.kiva.org/about • CIVIcrm – a free and open source solution for the civic sector. o http://civicrm.org/ • Sparked – a platform for connecting volunteers and non-profit organizations. o http://www.sparked.com/

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

5. Findings 5.1 Survey A total of eight survey responses were received, of which two were from CreateHere project leaders (the total number of approached CreateHere project leaders was ten). The remaining six responses were from Glovico, Hub Zurich, AWOL All Walks of Life, l’appel Deutschland, WeGreen, and Emergent Structures. The responding organizations range from entrepreneurship, sustainability, health, youth, and language learning initiatives. The main resources used by Social Innovation projects are their established connections and networks. It is vital for these connections to see what is happening and how value is being created through the initiatives they are supporting. Established credibility is key for new support and continued support, and establishing and proving what your project is about and/or capable of accomplishing. The main barriers were, not surprisingly, a lack of money and secondly a lack of resources. The project main supporters were existing networks and connections of the organization and persons involved in the projects. This leads to three important questions: What happens to initiatives when they are lacking resources? How can social innovation projects and organizations build support and access to resources? How can networks and connections can be made as projects and initiatives are developed? These key questions lead to the design of an open-source platform with social networking functionality. For additional details see the full responses in the appendix A.1. 5.2 Condor/Gephi The use of the email data in Condor resulted in the graphic Fig. 3. (For reasons of protection of personal data, the names of the participants in the communication are not visible.) All nodes of sender and receiver were filtered to eliminate instances of less than two emails to filter out possibilities of spam and advertisements. This image shows there are many small clusters connected to some of the people from the larger cloud that is primarily CreateHere individuals. The graphic is illustrating that not all contacts that CreateHere communicates with are connected to each other. This demonstrates the potential need for a platform to provide the possibility of connections between the different clusters to increase the exchange of experiences, ideas, and support.

Fig. 3. Condor static view of CreateHere email analysis.

10 Â

Averack, Bennett, GĂźl, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

After importing all 22,000+ emails into Gephi the image of the network resulted in 1079 nodes and 2905 edges (Fig. 4). It also showed there were 121 communities, a modularity of 0.470, diameter of 7, average path length of 2.63 and the number of shortest paths is 357,833 (Fig. 6.). Since there are several nodes with no to few interactions with other nodes applying a filter for a minimum of 10 degrees results in image seen in figure 5. This shows that two nodes (corresponding to the CreateHere leader and the generic contact address) have more interactions and therefore a higher degree of distribution (Fig. 7.) and betweenness centrality (Fig. 8). These findings reinforce the results obtained previously with the Condor software.

Fig. 4. Gephi static view of CreateHere email analysis.

Fig. 5. Gephic static view of filtered CreateHere email analysis.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

Fig. 6. Gephi Size Distribution of CreateHere email analysis.

Fig. 7. Gephi Degree Distribution of CreateHere email analysis.

Fig. 8 Gephi Betweenness Centrality Distribution of CreateHere email analysis.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

In order to seek out more individuals interested in Social Innovation, the team used additional analysis features from Condor and Gephi. In Condor, the CoolPeople feature was used to find names of people associated with chosen key words or word pairs. Three word pairs were used in the search “Social Initiative,” “Social Enterprise,” and “Social Innovation” and provided the results seen in figures 9, 10 and 11. Unfortunately, the results returned names of politicians, historical figures, and popular icons, as well as entrepreneurs, professors, and project leaders. While many of these people are involved in social innovation, it is most likely more political involvement rather than local initiatives. Therefore, the CoolPeople analysis is considered for future research with more detailed filter settings.

Fig. 9. Condor static view Coolpeople search “social initiatives”

Fig. 10 Condor static view Coolpeople search “social enterprise”

Fig. 11 Condor static view Coolpeople search “social innovation”

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

5.3 Email Content Analysis The analysis of the email content through WORDij provided a visual diagram of word relationships as well as most common words and word pairs occurring within the emails. The top word pairs included the phrases “board meeting,” “main street,” “economic development,” “social innovation,” “board members,” and “forward seeing.” Common themes that came out of the analysis included planning, programming, partnering, and communication. This information was used to inform the creation of the open-source platform and categories of content that should be included in the project showcase. One key finding of this study that was discovered early in the research process was that people and organizations that are actively involved in social innovation projects and initiatives do not always use the phrase “social innovation” in describing the mission and goals or their organization. Due to this, the team had difficulty in identifying social innovation networks and hub in preliminary Condor searches. The email content analysis allowed the team to identity additional key teams used in communications surrounding social innovation to broaden the searches through Condor. These key terms included “social initiatives,” “social enterprise,” and “community development.”

Fig. 12. WORDij visual of CreateHere email content analysis

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

not

board

meeting

work

main

street

Detroit

economic

development

Chattanooga

school

board

community

forward

seeing

please

Detroit

civic

createhere

CEOs

cities

meeting

feel

free

new

social

innovation

board

members

Fig. 13. WORDij top words and word pairs from email content analysis

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

6. Proposed Solution 6.1 Open-Source Platform Given the considerable advancements that Open Source software has achieved in recent years, the team proposes a platform using Open Source software (Mulgan, Steinberg, Salem, 2005; Weber, 2005). Casson and Ryan give an overview for the adoption of open source software and identify six possible reasons: security, affordability, transparency, perpetuity, interoperability, and localization (Casson, Ryan, 2010). The proposed platform would enable users and developers to solve errors in the software quicker (security) and it will be more accessible since it is less expensive than proprietary software (affordability). Users and developers will be able to understand how the platform manages critical and personal data (transparency). As users will be able to access and store the source code, the software will always be available and without restrictions (perpetuity). As users will be able to modify the software, new data exchange functions can be implemented at any time (interoperability) and it will be possible to translate and adapt the software to the local culture and needs (localization). Moreover, Open Source can be seen as a social innovation in and of itself for its social, participatory, and democratic process, and this makes it an appropriate solution for the development of the team’s proposal. In this way, Open Source is a social innovation both as a method and for the purpose it fulfills (Mulgan, 2007). After careful comparison of different programming languages, the team decided to develop the proposed platform with the PHP programming language. Dynamic scripting programming languages like PHP, Python, and Ruby are attractive for web application development, because they allow rapid prototyping, fast code changes, and fast testing routines as they are interpreted instead of compiled. Purer wrote a complete comparison of these three open source programming languages describing their technical features (Purer, 2009). He pointed out that deciding which language should be used also depends on the factor of popularity of the programming language, in order to assure that there are enough programmers available for developing it. According to Purer’s analysis, the most important features of PHP are its popularity and availability. It is available on almost every shared hosting provider as the famous LAMP stack (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP). Moreover, there are a variety of popular and full-featured content management systems that developed in PHP that allow site building without programming skills, while Python and Ruby have elaborate web frameworks available that require more programming skills. Purer concluded his analysis by pointing out that PHP should be chosen because there are many existing resources available if the developing project is used for common tasks. Python and Ruby, on the other hand, should be used if the application is used for rare or custom tasks and specially trained and dedicated programmers are available. These findings are also supported by the Udemy blog that recently compared PHP, Python, and Ruby according to their popularity and diffusion (“Udemy Blog » Code Wars,” 2012). While PHP may not be the most discussed and favoured programming language, it is the most widely known as there are more programmers trained in it and more job postings requiring it. Regarding the available resources based on PHP and that can be used for developing the proposed platform, it is interesting to consider a recent report published by the Indonesian digital agency water&stone and written by Rich Shreves ( 2011). This report analyzed the market of the 20 most adopted open source content management system softwares (CMS), noticing that the most used CMS for the year 2010 and 2011 were WordPress, Drupal, and Joomla, with Wordpress clearly outpacing the other two and with Joomla showing a decline in several key metrics. Other researchers confirm the difference in adoption between Wordpress and the other CMS (“Open source wars,” n.d.). It is interesting to note that the team could use Wordpress as the content management system engine for the proposed platform, in order to have a wider audience that is able to use it or is already using it. For example, even CiviCRM, an open source constituent relationship management solution designed specifically to meet the needs of advocacy, non-profit and non-governmental groups, follows this strategy of developing a plug-in on the top of existing open source CMSes like Drupal and Joomla (CiviCRM Team, 2006). The Open Source Platform consists of two main features, the Project Showcase and the “Scale-Lab”, which are outlined below.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

6.2 Project Showcase Based on the survey data, e-mail analysis, and analysis of existing open source platforms the team designed wireframe mock-ups for the proposed social innovation platform. (See appendix A.2.) The showcase is an area to feature “best practices” and highlight social innovation projects. Categories of information for each project include a project description, keywords, contact information, challenges, organizers, goals, methods, timeline, resources, results, and supporting documents. A video introduction to the project and gallery of pictures is also built into each showcase page. Users will have the ability to borrow the information, adapt and implement the ideas and then upload their revision of the initial project to the site, creating a family tree. 6.3 “Scale-Lab“ The “Scale-Lab” includes the most important aspects to connect project leaders and incubate them to scale their projects. The main aspects are Mentorship, Networking, Project Development, and Incubation. The Scale-Lab will include specific actions and networking-events which platform users are encouraged to participate in to further their online-dialogues and develop concrete actions. It is about connecting the dots and bringing together the necessary resources for scaling Social Innovation Projects through network activation. Online there will be brainstorming and Feedback-Forums in which projects in different stages can be discussed and modified. Further through an online-competition, with e.g. Scale-Video-Pitches, the potential for growing projects shall be elaborated. Additionally, there will be specific support to spread and create the buzz in web, lowering the barriers for onlinenetworks to spread and scale the projects. For example, creating easy to start Facebook and Twitter “get started and active” apps for Social Innovation Project Leaders. The team recommends having specific profiles for Mentors, including their Location, Organization, Experience, and Speciality Area, as well as current and past Projects and recommendations. There is also the idea of having project time-lines and “family-trees” of scaling and new projects, which developed, based on the show-case projects. This would allow users to follow how a Social Innovation Project developed and which stages helped to scale and spread these projects. This should include an interactive part, where people can comment and add their experiences on different stages of the development of the projects.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

7. Conclusions 7.1 Limitations of our Research There are few points in this study, which have to be regarded as limited. These limitations occurred regarding: a) The Email Analysis b) The Measurement of Success c) Level of Contribution by CreateHere Project Leaders a) Email Analysis Limitations occurred in the use of the tools, Gephi and Condor, for the analysis of the emails of CreateHere. The full extent of the communication could not be captured as the email archive of only a single individual was available and therefore, did not include communications in which this individual was not copied on. The result of the analysis shows that the communication behavior in some projects was more pronounced than in others. This may appear that there is less communication in these projects, but a reason for this could be the occurrance of more face-to-face meetings between the project members due to shorter distances or because of more telephone conferences. The second problem of the analysis was that there was not the opportunity to analyze the communication between different projects, since only the email of the CreateHere co-founder was used and not messages exchanged between individual project members. This resulted in different clusters in the analysis of the emails as opposed to a galaxy. b) Measurement of Success Due to the limited duration of this study (25 weeks) it was not possible to implement the suggested platform nor to measure the impact of such a platform. Further development, testing, implementation, and assessment of the platform is suggested as a follow-up study. c) Level of Contribution by CreateHere Project Leaders Unfortunately the level of contribution by CreateHere project leaders was fairly low (only two responses for a short survey.) Due to this limitation, it is hard to conclude whether the proposed solution of an online-platform will meet the specific needs of CreateHere and their desire to scale and diffusion their projects and models. A follow-up study could be an excellent opportunity to engage and partner with CreateHere project leaders, to make the platform more robust and interactive. 7.2 Future Research This study served as a foundation for the creation of an open-source platform for the diffusion of social innovation projects, initiatives, and organizations. There are many opportunities for future study including further research, development, testing, and implementation of the open-source platform and evaluation and assessment of success of the platform. Future research development and testing allows opportunities to partner with a diverse group of social innovation project leaders and outreach to individuals identified in Condor CoolPeople searches. The results of this study have been shared with the client, Josh McManus of CreateHere, in hopes that funding, resources, and expertise can be collected to support the development of the platform.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

Glossary Betweeness - the measure to which a specific node controls the communication of other nodes within a network. Centrality - the number of links or edges incident upon a node. COINs (Collaborative Innovation Networks) - cyberteams of self-motivated people with a collective vision, to innovatively collaborate by sharing ideas, information, and work enabled by technology. Diffusion - the spread of linguistic or cultural practices or innovations within a community or from one community to another. Edges - these are lines that link nodes and show relationships, flows, or transactions by directionality and length. Nodes - these are points in a network map that represent people, groups, or organizations. Open Source Platform – a technology that allows for the collaboration and free sharing of media and information for the advancement of public knowledge and understanding. Social Innovation - novel ideas, methods, and organizations that meet social needs of all kinds where value created extends and strengthens civil society by improving the viability, sustainability, and resilience of the entire system. Swarm Creativity - the process of openly sharing ideas and work where the creative ouput is exponentially more than the sum of the creative outputs of all the individual team members.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

References Bastian, M., Heymann, S., & Jacomy, M. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (Vol. 2). Retrieved from http://gephi.org/publications/gephi-bastian-feb09.pdf Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design Thinking for Social Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/images/articles/2010WI_Features_WyattBrown_New.pdf Casson, T., & Ryan, P. S. (2010). Open Standards, Open Source Adoption in the Public Sector, and Their Relationship to Microsoft’s Market Dominance. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1656616 CiviCRM Team. (2006, January 10). About CiviCRM | CiviCRM Community Site. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from http://civicrm.org/aboutcivicrm Danowski, J. (2009). WORDij 3.0. Chicago: University of Illinois. Retrieved from http://wordij.net/ Gloor, P. (2010). Coolfarming: Turn Your Great Idea Into the Next Big Thing. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Gloor, P. A. (2006). Swarm creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks. Oxford University Press. Gloor, P. A., & Cooper, S. M. (2007). Coolhunting: Chasing Down the Next Big Thing. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Gloor, P. A., & Zhao, Y. (2004). TeCFlow - A Temporal Communication Flow Visualizer for Social Networks Analysis. CSCW’04 Workshop on Social Networks. ACM. Retrieved from http://www.ickn.org/documents/GloorCSCW04%2B.pdf McManus, Josh and Helen Johnson. (2011). CreateHere. www.createhere.org. Mulgan, G., Steinberg, T., & Salem, O. (2005). Wide open  : open source methods and their future potential. London: Demos. Retrieved from http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/wideopen Mulgan, G. (2007, March). Social Innovation: what is it, why it matters, how it can be accelerated. Young Fondation. Retrieved from http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/reports/social-innovation-what-itwhy-it-matters-how-it-can-be-accelerated-march-2007 Murray, R., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation. Young, 5(5), 2010. Retrieved from http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/Open_Book_of_Social_Innovation.pdf Open source wars: WordPress vs Drupal vs Joomla. (n.d.).Techi.com. Retrieved February 12, 2012, from http://www.techi.com/2011/07/open-source-wars-wordpress-vs-drupal-vs-joomla/ Phills, J. A. Jr., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation: 37-39. Retrieved from http://www.socialinnovationexchange.org/files/2008FA_feature_phills_deiglmeier_miller.pdf Purer, K. (2009, November). PHP vs. Python vs. Ruby. Retrieved from http://klau.si/php-vs-python-vs-ruby Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Simon and Schuster. Saul, J. (2010). Social Innovation, Inc.: 5 Strategies for Driving Business Growth through Social Change (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

Shreves, R. (2011). 2011 Open Source CMS Market Share Report (p. 62). water&stone. Retrieved from http://www.waterandstone.com/book/2011-open-source-cms-market-share-report Udemy Blog » Code Wars: PHP vs Ruby vs Python – Who Reigns Supreme [Infographic]. (2012, January 6).Udemy Blog. Retrieved February 9, 2012, from http://www.udemy.com/blog/modern-language-wars/ Weber, S. (2005). The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

Appendix A A.1 Survey Questions/Responses (see 5.1 for Survey Findings) Organization Location Focus

The Company Lab Chattanooga TN To increase the viability of startups in the southeast, connecting them with mentorship, resources, community, and capital.

www.colab.is Project Name, Description, and Weblink (if applicable).

CreateHere Chattanooga, TN CreateHere is a Chattanooga, TN nonprofit; a group of residents and new recruits working for arts, economic, and cultural development in the urban core. We put creative processes to work and connect locals around pressing issues, including safety, education, jobs, and talent retention. Our projects include a leadership development fellowship, a small business planning course, a grants program for creatives, and Stand, the world’s largest community visioning effort. MakeWork has been a banner program for CreateHere. It has led to a deepened community understanding and appreciation for individual artists. It has also served to incubate what is now a scalable, replicable model of community building using arts and culture as its central tool. Because of the program, MakeWork grantees are making career development a priority and are increasingly spending their dollars locally, ensuring their economic impact on the community. Open to emerging and established creatives working within a fifty-mile radius of Chattanooga, TN, MakeWork currently accepts Project, Studio Assistance, and Career Advancement grant proposals. Proposals undergo a rigorous professional jury process and grantees attend bi-monthly peer-roundtables to enhance marketing, budgeting, and networking skills, as well as interdisciplinary collaboration. Grantees are also required to maintain a blog and exhibit their creative work in self-initiated public showcases. MakeWork plans to sustain grants for individual artists while developing two additional program components, including the initiation of 10X10, a ten-day creative showcase in the downtown, and the development of cutting edge social-investment tools targeting the creative community. http://www.createhere.org/projects/makework/

Please describe the impact on the community and difference your project effectively made.

We have worked with existing organizations to create a structured pipeline for entrepreneurs in the chattanooga region, by aligning and connecting existing resources and creating new programs. We were able get several angel investment groups formalized, as well as create a process for startups to prepare for and obtain investment.

This program enables artists to become creative entrepreneurs. An increased ROI for MakeWork would position artists as a recognizable brand of creative economic development. Currently, sixty-three percent of MakeWork grantees report increased earned annual revenue and 93% invest in the local economy. With increased public exposure via the proposed 10X10 creative showcase and access to tools typically reserved for entrepreneurial ‘start-ups’, their innovative ideas will visibly add to the bottom line of the creative economy in our city. Since 2008, MakeWork has awarded 85 local artists $655,000 total funding for their creative work.

Through our accelerator and business support programs, we have seen the creation of over 120 new businesses and 240 new jobs. We have created a mentor network for startups which includes over 40 mentors. Which were the Workforce (Paid), Workforce Workforce (Paid), Established Connections/Networks, Equipment, Money (WIth No main resources (Unpaid), Established Stipulations) Connections/Networks, Office-Space you used in order to achieve this impact? Please give 2-3 examples and state through which mediums (e.g. city council, websites, foundations, network-events) you were able to secure these resources.

Workforce-through our community engagement and event we have people who interact with what we do, they buy into our vision, and commit to giving time or working at a low pay to make it happen Connections-our connections see that what we are doing is valuable for the community, and they evangelize their connections, to the point where we have lots of valuable and influential connections rooting for us and spreading the word when we need it. These influencers are what got the community looking toward us to fill the need for the entrepreneurial community building, which raised our credibility. Space-A local foundation provided money and a lot of help in securing a space for our community interactions to take place. We have had a huge amount of help from CreateHere, an existing nonprofit which "incubated" us as we launched.

* Five private foundations have provided funding for MakeWork. * MakeWork's board of advisors includes patrons of the arts, artists, and community leaders. They have helped establish a stronger presence in the creative community and aided in networking.

Which 3-5 things were mainbarriers to achieve your impact? Which 3-5 things were mainsupporters to develop and scale your project?

Current Laws/Rules/Restrictions

Lack of Money, Lack of Network/Connections, Lack of Knowledge-Sharing

Foundations, Individual Donors, Motivated Workforces, Networks/Connections, Community Interest/Support

Foundations, Networks/Connections

Any additional thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance.

MakeWork is an evolving initiative. As it transitions from a CreateHere sponsored program to its self-sustaining organizational life, the conditions and titles of the grants may shift to better suit the needs of an evolving community.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

Organization Location Focus

Glovico Hamburg/ New York Global Development/ Intercultural Dialogue

Hub Zürich AWOL All Walks of Life, Inc. Zürich Savannah Enabler, incubator, network, co-working Children and Youth at risk

Project Name, www.Glovico.org www.hubzurich.org Description, and Glovico is a Faitrade language school Weblink (if that allows people from developing applicable). countries to teach their mother tongues via Skype.

AWOL provides arts and technology youth development programs during after school and evening hours.

Indirect impact: We support business creation with a purpose and we offer networks and infrastructure to entrepreneurs and professionals in the social and environmental sphere.

80% of youth who complete AWOL programs go on to complete high school, enroll in college or technical school or simply stay out of trouble.

Which were the Workforce (Unpaid), Established main resources Connections/Networks, Office-Space you used in order to achieve this impact?

Workforce (Paid), Workforce (Unpaid), Established Connections/Networks, Money (WIth No Stipulations), Money (With Stipulations)

Workforce (Paid), Workforce (Unpaid), Established Connections/Networks, Office-Space, Equipment, Money (WIth No Stipulations), Money (With Stipulations)

Please give 2-3 examples and state through which mediums (e.g. city council, websites, foundations, network-events) you were able to secure these resources.

Personal meetings again and again. Some conferences (e.g. EVPA conference, SOCAP Europe, Vision Summit, Global Social Business Summit)

City council, state and federal grants provided our biggest initial boost.

Lack of Money, Lack of KnowledgeSharing, Lack of Resources

Lack of entrepreneurial spirit

Lack of Money

Foundations, Online-platforms, Networks/Connections

Motivated Workforces, Networks/Connections, Community Interest/Support

Grants, Networks/Connections, Community Interest/Support

Please describe the impact on the community and difference your project effectively made.

Currently we are arranging app. 200 lessons per month with each generating 5-6 of income in the countries that we work with.

A foundation is providing me with office space and I have a 50% job there allowing me to work on Glovico parttime until it has the scale of a full-time job. Through my professional network I had access to an IT company willing to contribute their time to help us with the website at a highly reduced price. Social Media allows me to spread the word about Glovico.

Which 3-5 things were mainbarriers to achieve your impact? Which 3-5 things were mainsupporters to develop and scale your project? Any additional thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance.

Averack, Bennett, Gül, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

Organization Location Focus

l'appel Deutschland e.V. Cologne/Witten The organization focusses on three interdependent project subjects in Ruanda, Africa:1. Health 2. Education 3. Infrastructure

WeGreen Berlin Sustainability communication

Emergent Structures Savannah, Georgia Collaborative material reclamation, and the innovative repurposing of those materials.

Project Name, Description, and Weblink (if applicable).

The organization focusses on three interdependent project subjects in Ruanda, Africa: 1. Health: Improvement of the current health situation through new health centers, education of nurses and doctors, supply of sufficient pharmaceuticals and immunisations 2. Education: Scholarship for students in Ruanda, who can not afford an university education by themselves. Students agree to pay their "study debt" back to the next generation of students. 3. Infrastructure: Improvent of the current water and electricity situation in Ruanda, meaning the construction of water pipelines and solar systems.

Project Name: WeGreen

Shuman Elementary Public School edible garden and outdoor learning area. A collaborative effort to reclaim valuable building materials from various historic sites in Savannah, and then to design and build a pergola and garden out of those materials in order to inspire students to learn how to grow organic food.

Please describe the impact on the community and difference your project effectively made.

Description: WeGreen is a searchengine, aimed at creating transparency around the topic of sustainability. With the Sustainability Footprint, we provide answers to questions about how ecological, social and transparent companies, brands and products are, in a fast and convenient way. On top of that, WeGreen enables true dialogue between consumers and corporations. WeGreen's users can rate the sustainability of companies themselves and the companies can reply to those evaluations.

Currently there is no Website available yet. The link www.lappel.de will host a webspace in future.

Weblink: http://wegreen.de/de/

Since the organization is not yet founded completely, first projects only had little impact so far. We were able to have signed the first scholarships for our students in Kigali, Ruanda. Additionally the first steps for the construction of the first hospital in the northern part of Rwanda have just begun. The community will have a sufficient health treatment for the first time since the genocide in the 90's. First solar systems and water pipelines are installed this month. Therefore a whole village will have electricity and clean water for the first time....

How do we intend to bring sustainable consumption into the mass market? We need two things only: reliable evaluations and easy access to information. How are we achieving this? WeGreen collects all substantial, factual and credible ratings about the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of companies. We then concentrate and collate that information objectively in the Sustainability Footprint and present it to our users and partners. Why we are doing this? WeGreen is a social business and we believe that through transparency and dialogue we can increase the sustainability of all consumers and all corporations, even if just a little bit. Our team consists of scientists, sustainability experts and information technology specialists and we believe in the power of information, the dynamic of the market and the power of all consumers.

http://www.emergentstructures.org/?p=2 348

The project provided workforce training for at-risk populations through reclamation opportunities, it reduced landfill, it created a comfortable place for students to learn about selfsufficiency in producing their own food in a public school garden, and enabled teachers to include curriculum about the value of locally grown produce. The project also created a symbol for innovative problem solving, and community collaboration.

Which were the Workforce (Paid), Workforce (Unpaid), Established Workforce (Paid), Established Connections/Networks, Money (With main resources Connections/Networks, Money (WIth No Stipulations) Stipulations) you used in order to achieve this impact?

Workforce (Unpaid), Established Connections/Networks, Money (With Stipulations)

Please give 2-3 Personal contact and honest communication, examples and newspaper articles and official applications for state through scholarships and prizes. which mediums (e.g. city council, websites, foundations, network-events) you were able to secure these resources.

1. websites 2. business angels

Word of mouth, websites, organizational networking.

Which 3-5 things were mainbarriers to achieve your impact? Which 3-5 things were mainsupporters to develop and scale your project?

Lack of Money, Lack of Resources, Current Laws/Rules/Restrictions

Lack of Money, Lack of Resources

Lack of Money, Lack of Resources, Lack of Community Interest/Support, Current Laws/Rules/Restrictions

Foundations, Grants, Motivated Workforces, Networks/Connections

Individual Donors, Motivated Workforces, Online- Grants, Online-platforms, platforms, Networks/Connections, Community Networks/Connections, Available Interest/Support Resources

Any additional These times it is hard to find a unique selling proposition that differs from other NGOs. thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and assistance.

Persistence and a vision for the long haul are required. Broad collaborative enterprises are challenging, and even daunting, but ultimately an effective way to create ripples of positive transformation.

24 Â

Averack, Bennett, GÃ¼l, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

A.2 Platform Wireframes DVGI

+RPH SDJH

&OLFN OHDGV WR

/DVW HGLWHG E\ .\OH $YHUDFN DW 30 (67 RQ 7KXUVGD\ -DQ

DVGIDVGI

6WLFN\ QRWH

KWWS ZZZ 25*1$0( FRP

6HFWLRQ

+20(

/2*,1

6,*1 83

,QSXW RN"

6KRZFDVH

$ERXW

)RUXP

6FDOH /DE

&RQWDFW

<HV

HV LQ PH 1R

+ +HDGHU 'LVSOD\ HUURU

/RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD $FWLRQ

1HZ SX]]OH

6HDUFK

+ +,*+/,*+7

-2,1 25*1$0( )LUVW 1DPH

/DVW 1DPH

-2,1

(PDLO $GGUHVV

83&20,1* (9(176 /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

-$1

6RFLDO ,QQRYDWLRQ (YHQW &KDWWDQRRJD 71

6RFLDO ,QQRYDWLRQ (YHQW $XVWLQ 7;

,1)2

5(*,67(5

92/817((5

,1)2

5(*,67(5

92/817((5

-$1

+ 1(:6 +($',1*

/RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

-$1

6RFLDO ,QQRYDWLRQ (YHQW 1HZ <RUN 1<

6RFLDO ,QQRYDWLRQ (YHQW 'HWURLW 0LFKLJDQ

,1)2

5(*,67(5

92/817((5

,1)2

5(*,67(5

92/817((5

,1)2

5(*,67(5

92/817((5

-$1

+ 1(:6 +($',1*

-$1

/RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

6RFLDO ,QQRYDWLRQ (YHQW &KDWWDQRRJD 71

)DGH -$1

+ 1(:6 +($',1* /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

RX VXUH \RX ZDQW WR GHOHWH HYHU\WKLQJ" 6+2:&$6( 'HOHWH HYHU\WKLQJ

RU FDQFHO

6&$/( /$%

7$.( $&7,21

/LQN

$%287 /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

&217$&7 /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

&RS\ULJKW 25*1$0( _ 3ULYDF\ 3ROLF\ _ /HJDO

25 Â

Averack, Bennett, GÃ¼l, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

)RUXP KWWS ZZZ 25*1$0( FRP +20(

+L 8VHUQDPH _ ORJ RXW

$ERXW

6KRZFDVH

6FDOH /DE

)RUXP

)RUXP $FWLRQ

&RQWDFW

6HDUFK LWHPV $FWLRQ

$FWLRQV

,WHP ODEHO

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

,WHP ODEHO

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

,WHP ODEHO

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

,WHP ODEHO

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

'HVFULSWLRQ RI LWHP LQ LWHP OLVW

,WHP GHWDLO

0D\

6+2:&$6(

6&$/( /$%

7$.( $&7,21

/LQN

&RS\ULJKW 25*1$0( _ 3ULYDF\ 3ROLF\ _ /HJDO

$%287 /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

&217$&7 /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

26 Â

Averack, Bennett, GÃ¼l, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

3URMHFW SDJH KWWS ZZZ 25*1$0( FRP DVGI

&OLFN OHDGV WR

+L 8VHUQDPH _ ORJ RXW

+20(

&OLFN OHDGV WR

$ERXW DVGIDVGI

6KRZFDVH

6FDOH /DE

)RUXP

&RQWDFW

6WLFN\ QRWH

3URMHFW QDPH

KWWS ZHEVLWH FRP

6RFLDO 0HGLD %XWWRQV

,QSXW RN"

.H\ZRUG .H\ZRUG .H\ZRUG .H\ZRUG .H\ZRUG

<HV 8VHU W\SHV LQ WKHLU QDPH

/RFDWLRQ

&RQWDFW LQIRUPDWLRQ /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

'LVSOD\ HUURU

1H[W

, PDNH

[)-DE

1HZ SX]]OH

6HDUFK

3URMHFW 'HVFULSWLRQ

2UJDQL]HUV

/RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

3URMHFW &KDOOHQJH

3URMHFW *RDOV

3URMHFW 0HWKRGV

3URMHFW 7LPHOLQH

)DGH

$UH \RX VXUH \RX ZDQW WR GHOHWH HYHU\WKLQJ" 'HOHWH HYHU\WKLQJ

RU FDQFHO

3URMHFW 5HVXOWV

3URMHFW 5HVRXUFHV

3URMHFW 'RFXPHQWV

3URMHFW 3LFWXUHV

6+2:&$6(

6&$/( /$%

7$.( $&7,21

/LQN

$%287 /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD &217$&7 /RUHP LSVXP GRORU VLW DPHW FRQVHFWHWXU DGLSLVFLQJ HOLW &UDV LPSHUGLHW HQLP DF DXJXH DXFWRU YLYHUUD

&RS\ULJKW 25*1$0( _ 3ULYDF\ 3ROLF\ _ /HJDO

27 Â

Averack, Bennett, GÃ¼l, Machur, Menichinelli, Siniscarco / The Diffusion of Social Innovation with CreateHere (2012)

6HQG

0RELOH SKRQH GULOO GRZQ $ % & ' ( ) * + , . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < =

&DUULHU

9LHZ WLWOH

1RZ SOD\LQJ

,QIR

([DPSOH LWHP

,WHP WLWOH

([DPSOH LWHP

6HFWLRQ *URXS *URXS

([DPSOH LWHP

ODEHO

9DOXH

([DPSOH LWHP

ODEHO

9DOXH

ODEHO

9DOXH

ODEHO

9DOXH

([DPSOH LWHP

)LOWHU

H [W

&DQFHO

2 3

. /

0 UHWXUQ

WHU

(GLW

$ $OO LWHPV

1H[W

&DUULHU

*URXSV

)LOWHU

0RUH

)LOWHU

0RUH

)LOWHU

0RUH