blog 2 sarah team 1

Throughout the course so far, I’ve learned that social innovation is all about designing things that help people make positive changes that are novel, improved, and sustainable. There are no rules or boundaries that define what forces can work together to encompass this type of social change. That is characteristic that makes social innovation so unique and such an infrequent yet valuable occurrence. It is both risky and uncertain, and involves numerous different stakeholders to shape an innovative idea into a tangible reality. Design and policy methods as well as consumer need for change can foster new ways of thinking which have the potential to transform people’s lives in monumental ways. By combing design methods and policy one can create a productive tactic to frame ideas and research within.
An example of this type of collaborative approach is Sanders’ co-design space. Sanders emphasizes that one of the biggest mistakes made in the design processes is that too much time is spent on one idea instead of exploring many possibilities due to lack of comprehensive knowledge. Participatory design is a solution to this problem. Participatory design is a design practice in various co-design activities throughout the design process. This technique makes use of a wide collection of tools by involving stakeholders (employees, partners, customers, users, etc.) to help guarantee that the end result meets their needs and is practical.
Green Building Alliance’s Mike schiller mentioned that green building has a huge health benefit for the public. Namely, reduced energy consumption, lower operating costs, positive marketing and promotion, and increased productivity. One of GBA’s initiatives was to create a framework for a two year long program for school districts to drive changes in energy consumption and green practices. The two year long project framework sought to build a curriculum where teachers promoted effective environmental and sustainability education to their students. Designing better codes, creating incentives for building owners, and monitoring performance and management, just to name a few, is where policy came into play. Results of this innovative idea was increased civic skills among students, improved health, increased environmental awareness, and a solid foundation for future college opportunities and workforce preparedness.
So if there is so much benefit in social innovation, why aren’t people doing it? Why could some of the ideas and experiments listed above fail? First, there are high net operating costs for completely novel projects/products ideas. Innovation is usually also limited to a few resources, and are often doomed to high startup failure rates. Or, perhaps the public lacks the knowledge and/or skills to needed in order for the product to catch on. Take GBA’s green and healthy school academies initiative for example. Why may schools not take on something that has the potential to increase positive student outcomes in the long run? First off, green practices may be too expensive for some school districts to take on, and some educators may lack the knowledge and/or funding for training to make the program effective being that it involves many different issues on a complex yet significant issue.
Going back to participatory design, there are also some challenges and limitations that may cause the co-design approach to fall short. First, it’s a challenge for find the appropriate place for various stakeholders in PD activities. With so many differing repertoires of tools and techniques involved, it can be difficult to organize such a broad skillbase. Participatory approach also prefers the face-to-face approach, which can be difficult to organize and cost-intensive. Also, the occasional need to travel to meet face-to-face may pose limitations of the size and durability of tools and materials.