Defining and SustainingDefining and Sustaining Social Innovation technology

Contents

• Purposep

• Various Technologies for SocietyVarious Technologies for Society

• Defining Social Innovation Technology• Defining Social Innovation Technology

Creating Shared Value with Technology• Creating Shared Value with Technology

S• Summary

Purposep

• Academic purpose presentation

• Proposing the concept of social innovation• Proposing the concept of social innovation technology

• How to sustain social innovation technology

What has been done so farWhat has been done so far

Technology EvolutionTechnology & Society

(K tl 2010)

Technology has been developed to meet the needs of the times and make the world better.

M h i ti

IndustrialRevolution

- Quality

Market 1.0 Market 2.0

- Targeting

Market 3.0

- Co-creation

(Kotler, 2010)

- Mechanization- Automation

Division of labor

Quality - Efficiency- Economy of scale

Product-Oriented Customer-Oriented

- Segmentation- Economy of scope- Differentiation

Value-Oriented

- Supply meaning- Sustainability- Communitization

Division of labor Product-Oriented Customer-Oriented Value-Oriented

Evolution of Technology gy

Capitalism 1.0 Capitalism 2.0 Capitalism 3.0 Capitalism 4.0

Laissez faire Economics

Revised capitalism Neoliberalism Conscious capitalism

(Kaletsky, 2010)

Various Technologies for SocietyTechnology & Society

Various technologies for society has been developed and evolved, and appropriate technology is

the most well known concept among them.

Society driven

Innovation Warm Technology

Vastly superior to the primitive technology of bygone ages but at the same time much simpler

Ernst Friedrich Schumacher, 1973Technology that is deployed on a commercial scale and directly influence citizens for societal goal

MOTIE(2011)

Intermediate(2010s)at the same time much simpler,

cheaper, and freer than the super-technology of the rich

Hazeltine,BChristopher,B , 1999

influence citizens for societal goal

Ronald L. Mace, 1974

Technology(1970s)

Universal Design(1970s)

Encompassing technological choice and application that is small-scale, decentralized

Christopher,B , 1999Approach to design that incorporates products as well as building features which, to the greatest extent possible, can be used by everyone

,

Technologies For Society

AppropriateTechnology

Macro Ergonomics

(1990 )

decentralized, labor-intensive, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and locally controlled

For Society

Alternative

gy(1970s)

(1990s)

SociallyPublic

Soft science

Technologies that are more

Peter Harper, 1970s Design of work systems which focuses on organization-system

Kleiner, 2006AlternativeTechnology

(1970s)Socially useful

Technology

ub cinterest

Technology

genvironmentally friendly than the functionally equivalent technologies dominant in current practice

organization system interaction

The Rise and Fall of the Appropriate Technology Technology & Society

Aid using technology Human-centeredMarket-oriented

perspectiveto Third World Sustainable

development Technological vanguardism

u a ce te edTechnology

p p

Beginning of Crisis of Appropriate Design Revolution for the Appropriate TechnologyAppropriate TechnologyAppropriate TechnologyBeginning of Appropriate Technology

“Intermediate technology” by E. F. Schumacher.

Crisis of Appropriate Technology Movement

Criticism that appropriate technology does not work well with dealing economic and social problems.

Design Revolution for the Other 90 Percent

Market-oriented perspective gained strength.“The way of donation” led AT movement to failure.

Appropriate Technology Boom

Technical aid institutions ; Practical Action (UK), GIZ (Germany), SNV (Netherlands)

Appropriate Technology for Sustainable Growth

Development of alternative technologies based on ecological aspects.

Appropriate Technology for Assistance to the Third World

Attention on appropriate technologies for assistance to the Third World increased gradually. and social problems.

Focusing on rapid economic development based on large-scale industrial facilities, and multinational construction.

AT movement to failure.

Paul Polak, “Design Revolution”the affordable design for the poorest 90 percent

( )

Social enterprises ; IDE (International Development Enterprises), KickStart

Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG, now Practical Action)

University of Sussex in UK declared Sussex Manifesto which claimed that

p

National Center for Appropriate Technology NCAT

increased gradually.

Office of Appropriate Technology, OAT

Abolishment of OAT Design for the Other 90

1965 1973 1976 1980 2007 current1966

developed countries should increase aid using scientific technologies

1970

Abolishment of OATLeaving NCAT without institutional and financial support

Design for the Other 90 Percent Exhibition in New York.

Limitations of Appropriate TechnologyTechnology & Society

“If you can’t sell it, don’t do it”

Supplier-centered projects have been adopted, and that led AT movement to the decline as well

No Economics

Glowstar Solar Lantern

ITDG’s Glowstar Solar Lantern originally designed

No AffordabilityNo Sustainable business

g y gfor Africa- its current price starts at $110, far too much for African Villages

AppropriateTechnology

User Needs

Strengthen Consumer-centered Market

Creation

Aakash: A $35 Android tablet

A resistive touch screen, no access to the Market for apps, and a poor battery life

The early Insecticide-treated Mosquito Net

“The way of donation” Local users are NOT capable of reproducing, repairing and can NOT create business.Interfere with local business.

Technology

Local Development

Business

No Operability

PlayPump

"a real disaster "a real disaster,“Women finding it difficult to operate; pumps out of commission for up to 17 months; children not playing as expected on the merry-go-rounds, and maintenance.”

Death valley of Appropriate technologyTechnology & Society

If appropriate technology does not solve these issue, the technology will not pass through the

valley of death toward technological success.

Sustainability of Appropriate TechnologyEffort

Valley of Utility Valley of Economy Valley of Adoption

Customer Needs Business Model Chasm

Research Development Commercialization IndustrializationAT AT AT

-Ideation -Prototyping -Production -Marketing

Time

Conceiving and DefiningConceiving and Defining Social Innovation Technology

Paradigm Shift of Social ContributionSocial InnovationTechnology

Concept of social contribution has been changed from passive donation to active social

innovation through creating shared value.

Continuance Contribution

Equilibrium

2000 ~1990~ 1980Co-evolution

Revised Capitalism Neoliberalism Crisis of Capitalism

Paradigm Charitable donations Social Responsibility Social Innovation

Purpose Profit return & Taxation Marketing & Risk management Creating shared value

Attention Supplier Needs Consumer Needs Stakeholder Needs

Attitude Passive Obligatory Active

(SERI Report, 2012 reconstitution)

Why shared valueSocial InnovationTechnology

Shared value means that policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a

company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions (Porter and Kramer,

• Increase of social environmental and

The dilemma of companies

2012). → A concept that focuses on the connections between societal and economic progress.

Value Maximization• Increase of social, environmental, and

economic problems

- Business as a major cause.

• Pressure of corporate social responsibility

- Burden of charitable expendituresp

- Responsibility = Expenditures

• Need of strategic philanthropy• Need of strategic philanthropy

- Social responsibility = Business

(Porter and Kramer 2012)(Porter and Kramer, 2012)

Shared value represent a higher form of capitalism which creates a positive cycle of company

and community prosperity (Porter and Kramer, 2011).

Successful examples of appropriate technologySocial InnovationTechnology

Traditional approaches for solving social issues had a resource problem that limit their scale.

Where the resource comes from is basically business (Financial resource) or environment (Natural

Olyset Net(Tanzania)

G-Saver(Mongol)

G-Brick(Bangladesh)

Examplesresource).

PublicTechnology

Social InnovationTechnology

Social

Benefit

• Malaria prevention

• Infant survival rate

• Local production

E l t

• Convenience

• Respiratory

disease

L l i l

• Local factory

• Employment

creation

T h l• Employment

creation

• Local social

enterprise

• Technology

transfer

Economic

Benefit

• Price ↓

• Period of use ↑

• Fuel expenses ↓

• Local profit ↑

• Investment ↓

• Global market ↑Charity

TechnologyCommercialTechnology

↑

• African market ↑

p ↑ ↑

Environmental

Benefit

• Insecticide use ↓

• Environmental

• CO2 ↓

• Air pollution ↓

• Fossil Fuel ↓

• Water use↓

pollution ↓ • CO2 ↓

If technology focuses on single side of benefit, it always face resource problem.

Thus, sustainable development for social innovation is available when technology considers

multiple benefits simultaneously.

The concept and directionsSocial InnovationTechnology

Social innovation technology refers to the technology that provide economical, social, and

environmental sustainability through creating shared value.

Social innovation technolgy

through creating shared value

Social InnovationT h l

By broadening the scope of technology

By changing the focus of technology

g g

Technology By nurturing the key player of technology

By evaluating the impact of technology

By building the ecosystem of technology

Appropriate

y g y gy

AppropriateTechnology

How to Make SustainableHow to Make Sustainable

Broadening the scope Socio-technological System

As technological system evolves, non-physical components as well as physical components playcritical role (Hughes, 1987)

Physical componentsNon-physical components Technological

SystemPhysical artifact,

TechnologyInstitution, Organization,

Market, Culture, Regulation…

Systemevolution

Reverse-salient on technological system evolution

Invention– Invention– Development– Innovation– Transfer

M E t

Inventor-Entrepreneur By correcting reverse-salient,technological system evolves.

In each phase,– Growth– Competition– Consolidation

Manager-Entrepreneur

Financier-Entrepreneur

In each phase,different capabilities and consideration of non-physical components are required to correct reverse-salient.

Broadening the scope Socio-technological System

Without considering social components, technological system hardly can proceed to thenext level.

PlayPump failed to address social and operational issues properly• Operational issues

A Liter of Light Project shows socially and environmentally sustainable model• Useful

– Additional torque required to pump fresh water made children become tired quickly

– No proper maintenance service was provided after installation

– Solar bottle bulb gives off as much light as a 55-watt bulb without electricity

• Affordable It is inexpensive and easy to makeprovided after installation

• Social issues– It was not playful for adults to operate

PlayPump

– It is inexpensive and easy to make– Materials to build the bulbs are sourced

from local communities

• Sustainabley p– Consensus for replacing hand-pump with

PlayPump was not made in the local community

Sustainable– The project recycles bottles that might

otherwise end up in a landfill– It also offers jobs for locals who build and

– Without consultation with local authorities, PlayPump circumvented Government policies and planning framework

jinstall the bottle bulb

– Its focus is on teaching a community how to manufacture and install the solar bottle b lbbulbs

Market OrientationChanging the focus

Market-orientation enables social enterprises to achieve a competitive advantage and

continuous superior performance.

Kohli & Jaworski (1990)

Market orientation

N d d i T h lThree core themes1) Customer focus2) Coordinated marketing3) Profitability

Need-driven Technology

• Create customer value (Blocker,2011)

• Broadening of ‘Market’3) Profitability

Narver & Slater (1990)

Broadening of Market: Consider broader stakeholders(Freeman, 1984)(Maignan & Ferrell, 2004)

Behavioral components1) Customer orientation2) Competitor orientation3) Interfunctional coordination

( )

Financial independence through Profitability

• Stable operation, irrespective of 3) Interfunctional coordination

Decision criteria1) Long-term focus

p , poutside support fund and policy• Avoid market distortion• Continuous (long term) business management) g

2) Profitabilityg

Technology based Social EnterpriseNurturing Key Player

Existing SEs are suffering from economic sustainability due to lack of market-oriented technology

• Fragile economy crying out for sustainable growth

• “Creating jobs” rather than to “promoting social innovation”

• Insufficient innovation capabilities due to weak R&D activities

Challenges

※ General Social Enterprise

p

1) Innovating public service, 2) Providing jobs, 3) Resolving local problems, 4) Enhancing corporate social responsibility

Government Value(Social)

SocialEnterprise

Support (Product, job …) Support (Subsidy)

One direction generally cannot be a permanent solution

( )Enterprise

One direction generally cannot be a permanent solution.

Technology based Social EnterpriseNurturing Key Player

※ Technology-based Social Enterprise

- If generated revenue is greater than the cost, then a virtuous circle should be achieved

Government(Investor,

Enterprise)

SocialEnterprise

MarketTechnology

Value(Social,

Economic)

Investment Product

Enterprise) Technology

Feedback (Re-investment / Improvement)

• Examples of technology-based social enterprise

- Poverty and social problems can be resolved by “business” rather than “sympathy”.

- There are remarkable examples of technology-based social enterprises, which don’t directly provide a kind of

economic aid to socially marginalized householders but provide technology driven products to them at reasonable

price. Social enterprise Products or Service Core technology Biz model Market

D li ht H i idDSP chip, MIC, Receiver / Business process

“I di t” t b id ODelight Hearing aidDSP chip, MIC, Receiver / Business process reengineering

“Indirect” government subsidy O

Vestgaard FrandsenPortable water purifier Mosquito net killinginsects

Bacteria filtration tech.Fabric manufacturing tech. Generated revenue are re-investigated into R&D.

Selling huge volume of product at low price O

Certification of Environment-friendlyHeukSalim Agricultural materials Pedology / climatology

Certification of Environment friendly agricultural products & education

O

AravindOphthalmology

Cataract surgery ophthalmology A double price O

Socio-eco-efficiencyEvaluating the impact

Eco-efficiency is assessed by considering economic and environmental effect of products and

socio-eco efficiency is assessed by adding social effect.y y g

E Effi i• Eco-Efficiency =

Environmental performance throughout the entire product life−cycle

Costs for the end customer for buying, using, maintaining, and disposing the product

Fig. Socio-eco-efficiency • Socio-Efficiency =

Social benefit throughout the entire product life−cycleg y

(Basf, http://www.basf.com/)Social benefit throughout the entire product life cycle

Costs for the end customer for buying, using, maintaining, and disposing the product

Socio-eco-efficiency approach increase the positive ecological and social performance of the company in

relation to economic value creation, or reduce negative effects, which ensure long-term market success , g , g

(Schaltegger et al. 2002; Schmidt et al. 2004; Dyllick and Hockerts 2002)

Socio-eco-efficiencyEvaluating the impact

Economic benefit accomplished with economic sustainability can be reinvested to development

and lead to environmental/social sustainability. To achieve this virtuous circle, detailed

Evaluation Example: SEEBalance (BASF)

evaluation of the social and environmental impact should be considered.

Evaluation Example: SEEBalance (BASF)

The extension of Eco-Efficiency-Analysis which considers environmental and economic factors by including

social factors in the evaluation (Saling and Pierobon, 2011).

(1) Set unit to analyze social (2) Aggregate impacts (3) Evaluate alternatives(1) Set unit to analyze social/environmental effect

(2) Aggregate impacts of each dimension

(3) Evaluate alternatives

Social Innovation Technology ClusterBuilding the ecosystem

The ecosystem enable elements to accumulate knowledge and generate synergistic effect for

better appropriate technology toward social innovation.

NGO/NPO(Information)

GovernmentAdministration

(Policy)

D fi

University(Education)

Consumer(Needs)

ManpowerTraining

ProblemExploration

DefineSocial

Problem

Social Enterprise(Product)

IdeaDevelopment Empowerment

Local SocialEnterprise

(Productivity)

ResearchOrganization(Technology)

JointR&D

Commercialization

Localization

Enterprise(Experience)

Investor(Fund)

Commercialization

Social Innovation Technology Cluster (Tanimoto, 2007)

Social Innovation TechnologySummary

Socio technical Perspective

Social Innovation

Socio-technical Perspective

Socio-eco efficiency

MarketInnovation

TechnologyInnovation

(AT)Creating Shared ValueMarket Orientation

Technology based

Social Enterprise

Social Innovation Technology Cluster

Role of KAISTAppendix

-The Challenge of KAIST: To train a Leader in Social Innovation Technology

Cultivating

Entrepreneurship

Practical

Research

Social entrepreneurship

- Entrepreneurship class

IdeaFactory

- Educational programs for p p- Expert mentoring group

KAIST URP Program

- Addressing social problem

digital fabrication

- Implementing ideas with

rapid prototyping

KAISTKAIST- Design-thinking - Learning by doing

CommercializationKnowledge

Network

Collaboration with external

organizations

- Sharing and Technologies

Cooperation with KITECH

- Manufacturing trial product

Incubating start-upsSharing and Technologies

Incorporated

- Good Neighbors

- Daedeok R&D Cluster

Incubating start ups

- Space support

- Marketing support

- Investment supportpp

Bansal, P. 2005. “Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development”. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

Referencesg y g y p p g g

Blocker et al. 2011. “Proactive customer orientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (2), pp. 16–233.

Brocklehurst C., and Peter Harvey. 2007. “An evaluation of the PlayPump Water System as an appropriate technology for water, sanitation and hygiene programmes”, UNICEF, Retrieved at http://www-

tc.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/southernafrica904/flash/pdf/unicef_pp_report.pdf.

Burchart-Korol, D. 2011. "Application of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment and Socio-Eco-Efficiency Analysis in Comprehensive Evaluation of Sustainable Development," Journal of Ecology and Health (3),

pp 107-110.

Ciegis, R. et al. 2009. “The Concept of Sustainable Development and its use for Sustainability Scenarios”. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(2), 28-37

Chambers, R. 1989. “Vulnerability”, coping and policy. IDS Bulletin, 20(2), 1–7.

Dyllick, T., and K. Hockerts. 2002. “Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability”, Business Strategy and the Environment (11), 130-141.

Elkington J. 1998. “Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business”. New Society: Stony Creek, CT.

Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

Holliday et al 2002 “Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development” World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Geneva SwitzerlandHolliday et al. 2002. Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development . World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Geneva, Switzerland.

Hughes TP. 1987. The evolution of large technological systems.

ICT works. 2011. “Aakash: A $35 Android tablet towards universal access to computing”. http://www.ictworks.org.

IUCN, UNEP, WWF. 1996. “Caring for the earth: a strategy for sustainable living”. In Principles of Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development: Summary and Survey, Rockefeller SC (ed). Earth

Charter Project, Earth Council: San Jose, Costa Rica; 129–131.

Kohli, A. K., and Jaworski, B. J. 1990. “Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications”. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

Maignan, I., and Ferrell, O. C. 2004. “Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3–19.

Maler, K. G. 1990. “Economic theory and environmental degradation: a survey of some problems”. Revista de Analisis Economico(5), 7-17.

Narver, J. C., and Slater, S. F. 1990. “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

Paul Polak. 2010. “The Death of Appropriate Technology I : If you can’t sell it don’t do it”, Quality of Life Research and Sociology. http://www.paulpolak.com.

PBS. 2010. “Troubled water”. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld.

Porter, M., and M. Kramer. 2002. “The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy”. Harvard business review, 80(12), 56-68.

Porter, M., and M. Kramer. 2011. “Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth”. Harvard Business Review January–February.

Pursell, C. 1993. “The Rise and Fall of the AT movement in the United States, 1965-1985”, Technology and Culture, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 629-637.

Saling, P., and Pierobon, M. 2011. "Measuring the sustainability of products: The Eco-Efficiency and SEEBALANCE® analysis," in LCM 2011.

Schaltegger, S., Kleiber, O., and Müller, J. 2002. “Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement in Unternehmen: Konzepte und Instrumente zur nachhaltigen Unternehmensentwicklung“, Berlin: BMU and BDI.

Schmidt I Meurer M Saling P Kicherer A Reuter W and Gensch C O 2004 "SEEbalance " Greener Management International 2004:45 pp 78-94Schmidt, I., Meurer, M., Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Reuter, W., and Gensch, C. O. 2004. SEEbalance, Greener Management International , 2004:45, pp 78 94.

Solar bottle bulb, Retrieved at http://aliteroflight.org.

Tanimoto, K. 2007. “Social Innovation Cluster in Action: A Case Study of the San Francisco Bay Area”. Hitotsubashi journal of commerce and management,41(1), 1-17.

WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

곽선화, 사회적 기업 3주년 성과분석, 고용노동부, 2010

송위진, 장영배, 성지은(2009), 사회적 혁신과 기술집약적 사회적 기업, 과학기술정책연구원

송위진, 성지은, 김왕동(2012), 기술집약형 사회적 기업 활성화 방안, 과학기술정책연구원

장하원. 2012. “인간의 얼굴을 한 기술 – 적정기술”, http://navercast.naver.com.

한국산업기술진흥원. 2013. 세상을 바꾸는 생각들 – 적정기술.

홍석욱 외. 2012. “인간 중심의 기술 적정기술과의 만남”, 에이지21, pp.63-65.

Q & AQ & A