Abstract There is a pressing need for innovation in the humanitarian sector, faced as it is with ever-growing demands for it to respond to the plight of people affected by both human and natural disasters. These are arguably growing in scale, scope, and complexity, and look likely to continue to do so. However, despite being referred to more explicitly in the last ten years, the understanding of humanitarian innovation by practitioners, policymakers, and academics is still very much in its infancy. To help address this issue, this paper draws on and extends the innovation ecosystems literature to present a systematic framework for analysing innovation in the humanitarian sector. This framework is illustrated using evidence from an interview-based survey of ‘informed’ users and a set of in-depth case studies.
Abstract The concept of innovation ecosystems has become popular during the last 15 years, leading to a debate regarding its relevance and conceptual rigour, not the least in this journal. The purpose of this article is to review received definitions of innovation ecosystems and related concepts and to propose a synthesized definition of an innovation ecosystem. The conceptual analysis identifies an unbalanced focus on complementarities, collaboration, and actors in received definitions, and among other things proposes the additional inclusion of competition, substitutes, and artifacts in conceptualizations of innovation ecosystems, leading to the following definition: An innovation ecosystem is the evolving set of actors, activities, and artefacts, and the institutions and relations, including complementary and substitute relations, that are important for the innovative performance of an actor or a population of actors. This definition is compatible with related conceptualizations of innovation systems and natural ecosystems, and its validity illustrated with three empirical examples of innovation ecosystems.
Abstract Many trusts and foundations are grappling with the same challenges: they want to a) support impactful, inclusive technology and innovation in not-for-profit organisations, and b) address the societal changes brought about by emerging technology. This guide is for people working in trusts and foundations who want to effectively fund technology. It offers guidance and processes to help in understanding the technical maturity of not-for-profit organisations or assessing the feasibility of technology-heavy grants. It provides notes on how to have productive conversations with grantees and partners about technology, and it provides tips for building technical intuition. The contents of this guide are shaped around conversations within foundations that are focused on equality, justice and human rights. Trusts and foundations are referred to collectively as ‘philanthropy’; organisations that receive funding to accomplish socially beneficial outcomes are referred to using ‘the social sector’. Technology is approached as a set of politics and capacities; the term ‘technology’ is used throughout to encompass many ideas, tools and concepts – including those related to ‘data’.
Strengthening the Humanitarian Innovation Ecosystem: Humanitarian Innovation Ecosystem Research Project Final Report May 2015
Abstract This report comes at a time when the 3 international humanitarian community is facing unprecedented challenges that are growing in scale, scope and complexity. There is growing awareness of the need for transformational change in what humanitarian actors do and how they do it, to maintain relevance, reputation and impact. This report focuses on new and growing efforts to achieve such change through humanitarian innovation. Wherever it happens, innovation is about creating value through the application of new ideas. But it seldom occurs purely by chance. The overarching aim of this report is to analyse and assess the ecosystem of actors and factors shaping innovation within the humanitarian sector. The objective is to understand and recommend how best to strengthen and improve the humanitarian innovation ecosystem so it can make the best possible contribution to overall humanitarian effectiveness.
Abstract An ethnographic case study of the Innovation Unit of UNICEF, the United NationsChildren Fund, examines how design attitude approaches manifest within the innovation agendaof the organization. Our analysis illuminates key principles, practices and processes involved inthe programmatic implementation of the innovation mandate at UNICEF and reveals theemergent nature of modes of generative design responsible for new configurations of socialpractices. Thestudy confirms the positive impact of key design attitude dimensions in advancing processes oforganizational change and identifies a set of wins for design while also pointing to real barriersthat illustrate how these design modes remain at the edge of an uncharted territory. At the macro-level of analysis, two important findings of the study reside in elucidating how design attitude inthis organizational context of global innovation is impacted by the themes of accountability andurgency that govern the institutional logics of the organization.
Located here: Consent Form
Located here: Information sheet
Located here: Participant debrief document
Notes: Split into 3 sections:
- What does the participant do within the organisation? Explore the intersections of what they do with their comments. (about your organisation and you)
- Innovation and open tech. (about innovation)
- Design activities and methods.
--
-
What aspect of humanitarian/human-rights work does your organisation do? a. What part of what you've described are you closest to in your work or volunteer role?
-
Who are the end-users, beneficiaries or partners, CSO’s, other NGO’s etc. outside of your organisation that you engage with at both an organisational and individual job level?
-
What does 'user' (or beneficiary) engagement look like to you and your organisation (could be different).
-
What does the term 'innovation' mean to you within your organisational context? a. How would you define 'innovation' within humanitarian/human-rights contexts in your organisation?
-
Do all or most of the people working in your organisation agree on the definitions and aims of innovation?
-
In what ways does innovation matter to you/your role and your organisations work? a. Why does humanitarian/human-rights innovation matter to the sector? b. To whom do you think innovation matters the most?
-
How would you describe how decisions are made regarding innovation internally and with partners or stakeholders? a. Is 'innovation' well invested in?
-
What does your organisation and the individuals or teams that work on 'humanitarian/human-rights innovation' need to feel or know that innovation is being done well?
-
In what ways is your current 'innovation work' networked or shared with other partners and stakeholders? a. If you're able to say who and what organisations?
-
Is there anyone, either internally or externally to your organisation that you feel is not included in innovation that should be?
-
What processes and methods do you know of and have you used in humanitarian/human-rights innovation in your organisation? a. Are there any that you know of that you have not been able to use and why?
-
How is technology, data and ways you work with (beneficiaries etc. use their language) changing the dynamics of the humanitarian/human-rights issues that you and your org care about? a. What are your biggest concerns about how technology will change society within your issue area? b. Are you planning programs to help shape these concerns or changes?
-
Do you work with (Free, Libre) open-source software (AKA OSS, FLOSS, FOSS) in your innovation with humanitarian/human rights? a. If you're unsure can you name some of the technology software (and hardware) you use? b. How do you or your organisation learn about new developments in technology?
-
Is there anything else related to the topic we've been talking about today that you want to tell me or talk about?
-
In relation to you and your work, what difference do you see between 'humanitarian innovation' and 'human-rights innovation'?
This is a collaborative whiteboard hosted on Miro where short-form information/data from the interviews will be hosted in order to be pre-synthesised by the researcher and then a follow-up synthesis confirmation, correction or adaptation can be made by the interview participants. https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_ltJ2k-w=/?invite_link_id=560477843428
- Consider and be aware of the 'six R's' when the user is talking and map on the miro board.
- Understand how humanitarian orgs like to portray themselves as proficient and 'doing well' in order to appear fundable.
- Questions might change wording and structure depending on the role of the participant being interviewed e.g. data might be understood as 'information collected about beneficiaries' and 'data' might only mean statistical, numerical information to some people.