Suchergebnisse

Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of current lab types for addressing wicked problems. A new lab type, a Systemic Innovation Lab, is proposed which combines the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems.


Design/methodology/approach
Characteristics of initiatives that are considered appropriate for addressing wicked problems and existing lab types that contain any of these characteristics are identified. These lab types are Social Innovation Labs, Living Labs, Urban Living Labs, Urban Transition Labs and Public Sector Innovation Labs. The proposed new lab type is reasoned by combining the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems. How the new lab would work in practice is illustrated with a case study.


Findings
When addressing wicked problems, labs need to take a systemic design and not a service design approach. They also need to focus on addressing complex problems, take a place-based and transition approach, enable coherent action by diverse actors, involve users as co-creators, support a networked governance approach and recognize government as an enabler of change.


Practical implications
This paper provides a new lab type designed specifically for addressing wicked problems. This new lab supports practitioners that take a systemic design, solution ecosystem and systemic innovation approach. Systemic design is based on a core set of principles that are a crossover between design and complexity theory.


Originality/value
For the first time, this paper analyzes different lab types to determine their appropriateness for addressing wicked problems. It also proposes a new lab type whose sole purpose is addressing wicked problems.

Purpose
This paper aims to question the utility of addressing food insecurity through food assistance programmes and by separating food security into pillars, and it argues for a systemic innovation and complexity approach. This is achieved by demonstrating that food insecurity is a wicked problem and therefore needs to be addressed holistically.


Design/methodology/approach
To establish that food insecurity is a wicked problem, characteristics of food insecurity are aligned to characteristics of wicked problems. The need to address wicked problems holistically through a systemic innovation approach and an understanding of complexity theory is discussed by referring to the literature. How to take such an approach for addressing food insecurity is illustrated by describing the use of an online tool that takes a systemic innovation and complexity approach.


Findings
Given food insecurity is a wicked problem and needs to be addressed holistically, the focus when addressing food insecurity should not be on programmes or pillars. Instead, it needs to be on increasing the coherence and building the adaptive capacity of food insecurity solution ecosystems.


Practical implications
This paper provides insights into the nature of food insecurity and how to address food insecurity.


Originality/value
For the first time, this paper aligns characteristics of food insecurity to characteristics of wicked problems and demonstrates how an online tool for systemic innovation can assist food insecurity solution ecosystems to address food insecurity.

The complexity sciences are subject to increasing policy interest from governments and international organisations as a means for fostering both social innovation and social entrepreneurship. However, there remains little conceptual clarity in how theories, concepts and ideas can be used consistently and productively. This article reviews the application of the complexity sciences in social innovation and social entrepreneurship scholarship overall and considers its implications for both fields. We outline how social innovation and social entrepreneurship can be conceptualised as complex processes, set within complex environments, tackling complex goals, and present a suitably revised model of the social innovation lifecycle. Based on this review - and the articles contributed to this special issue of Social Enterprise Journal – we argue that a complexity-informed perspective can contribute to scholarship and practice in three ways: as a rhetorical device, as an analytical framework for empirical analysis, and as a basis for developing new tools and methods for social innovation and social entrepreneurship. In this way academics can play a crucial role in helping policymakers and practitioners interested in the complexity sciences walk a line between fatalism and overstatement.