Blog for the Strategic Innovation MBA Course at Vanderbilt University
Societal Constraints??
www.sickchirpse.com
What's the most constrained domain of social innovation of interest to you? Why is it that way? How might one go about changing that? Post your thoughts in the discussion forum.
"Social Innovation goes beyond customer interaction and idea generation; it requires a powerful and coordinated network of players to take customer-generated innovation and to test, scale and implement it" - Nigel Fenwick (Forrester Blog).
In my opinion societal norms and traditions seem to pose the biggest constraint to social innovation. I take that view from a Marketers standpoint, because attempts to change consumer behavior with product invention are often met with failure. Sure, there a multitude of factors that determine the success of product introductions, yet it seems apparent to me that victories would be more likely if humans weren't such creatures of habit.
I'm not confident that will ever change; especially when I think about changing my own routine for a new product - not gonna happen! But, if humans were all rational beings, than I think articulating the value add or the clear benefit to the consumer could entice them to buck their norms.
Educational Reform is a particularly interesting form of social innovation that seems to be constrained by public opinion of what is right and wrong.
Parents want top quality education for their children. Employers want highly skilled future labor pools. Society wants a responsible new generation that will be able to tackle problems threatening our sustainability as a nation. However, nobody wants change.
Social entrepreneurs have been trying to address these needs and have come up with innovative solutions to the problem. Charter schools, longer hours, administrative systems that force competition among schools, paying teachers equivalent salaries to that of a corporate professional, and firing under-performing teachers are some of the ideas that have been implemented in small pockets across the country. And in many of these places, the public backlash is loud and clear. "You can't do that to our children!" "What about teachers that have devoted their lives to teaching? This is not the way you are supposed to teach a particular subject! School shouldn't be a competitive environment! Where are we going to find the money to pay our teachers so much?"
It seems to me that Americans are letting tradition get in the way of innovation. They don't want to make drastic changes to a system that has been in place for 100 years and worked well for them. It's time we realize that what worked well in the past will not be good enough to meet the demands of the future.
Social innovation is defined as ‘innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social’. In this sense, the healthcare industry might be the most constrained domain of interest to me.
It is constrained in the view of the long development cycle, strict regulations, extremely low frequency of invention as well as its complicated components including medicine, surgery and health system. Innovations in medicine and surgery have to survive numerous harsh tests so as to be applied; therefore, the high demands on resources, talents, and time throughout the whole developing process might daunt lots of creative efforts in this field. Moreover, the breakthrough in health system is the result of mutual reinforcement in economic, social and technical development.
It’s very hard to change this situation since everything related to our life and health deserve extra caution and therefore long test period. The only way is to put more motivation for innovative efforts in healthcare industry so that people would like to invest their whole life for a single invention.
What's the most constrained domain of social innovation of interest to you? Why is it that way? How might one go about changing that?
I am most interested in social needs involving community service and the charitable giving of time (rather than money). I found this to be a topic of interest from my experience in this space as both a member of our community service club at Owen and as a person who grew up volunteering and in a family which encouraged nonprofit work.
I think that charitable giving of time is very constrained because people have limited time and money. When individuals aren't at work, they want to exercise, relax, and spend time with family and friends. Since volunteering often involves sharing a skill, such as tutoring, I feel that individuals might wish to be paid for their service rather than do it for free.
At Owen, a group of us are working to create some kind of incentive for students, staff, and faculty to become more involved in the local Nashville community. We're currently discussing an honor code-like pledge in which students would personally sign and commit to community service, rather than mandating service as many high schools have done. I think that companies have already engaged in some of this service encouragement with their charitable foundations, senior leadership sitting on boards of local nonprofits, or company service days, but also that we have a long way to go!
I want to follow up on Angela’s comment about health care. I agree with her that there are some serious social norms built around health care, supported by extremely strict regulation. I also think there is some “guild behavior” in the way that different types of health care experts take ownership of particular spaces, and that those behaviors have been institutionalized in the health care systems. For example, why do we have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for medicine for things like the flu, and ear infection, or chicken pox? Many simple maladies are easily diagnosed by a nurse practitioner or even a nurse, yet we have built a system where you have to go to such a costly “expert” for resolution. Also, health care is a space where it is still taboo to talk about things like “cost”. That’s why you almost never pay for things until your appointment is over. How many of us are even really sure what is covered under our health insurance? It’s totally insane and financially unsustainable. That’s why I think the innovations in the health care service space are so interesting. Companies like Minute Clinic are trying to step into that space and find a low-cost but effective alternative. I’m all for a little competition too.
Sexual innovation has to number one. There are probably some people doing some interesting and innovative things behind their bedroom doors.
Regardless of if you think it is disgusting or innovative, there is probably someone who would consider the act innovative. People, however, won't ever talk about it for fear of being looked down on.
I'm not proposing that the act of sex has a lot of need for innovation, but the fact of the matter is that we are doing it the same way we did it 1000 years ago.
I would say that the most constrained domain of social innovation would be the law and politics, and a good example of this is the California proposition to legalize marijuana. It is interesting that because marijuana has been illegal for years, and marijuana users are looked down on by society, it is unlikely that any such proposition would pass in the near future. The reality is, however, that there is potential for the legalization of marijuana to be an innovative way for the government to increase its revenue and decrease its deficit. I think one of the reasons for the fact that societal constraints are large barriers to progress and innovation in the law is that it takes majority votes in numerous processes to pass a law. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does constrain changes and progress.
I have to agree with Chrissy that the most constratined domain of societal innovation is law and politics. The main players in these roles are afraid to make drastice legal changes for fear of pilitical suicide. Politcians that care about their careers would have a hard time supporting legal innovations that could be controversial. It is hard to make recommendations around fixing this constraint. Politicians are required to be conscious of their constituents' opions and persepctives. Controversial issues cause the general public to pasionately oppose or be proponents of proposed changes. The only politicians who dont care about constituents opioins are teh ones who will never be elected or those who are term limited.
I believe that, very generally, large organizations are the most constrained domain for social innovation. It’s often said that small companies are the most nimble and have the least risk when it comes to innovation. The reason is that large companies have processes in place that prevent themselves and their employees from going “off course”. It seems as though the organizational size, coordination mechanisms, functional relationships and overall structure of organizations present a variety of constraints that encourages silos at large companies. I also believe that, in contrast with smaller companies, there are many more constraints that exist from the outset of any project in large organizations. For this reason, those that seek to innovate are most likely to take the path of least resistance – within their own department. They essentially limit their vision based on all of these constraints that exist up front. As these departments evolve and grow, they become entities that are more and more dissimilar to the rest of the organization and very much a product of the local processes. The result is a silo that offers yet more resistance to cross-organization innovation. In order to change the structural constraints, I think it only makes sense to rethink how large organizations are structured. Of course, it’s more communication across departments, but I think the key is to ensure that employees at all levels have a more cross-disciplinary knowledge of how the company functions. Migrating managers throughout the organization in rotational programs is becoming more and more common, and I think this is in reaction to the aforementioned silos.
I think the most constrained domain of social innovation is the society's prejudice and norm. We all grow up in some kind of norms that form the way we see things. When new things come up, we tend to judge them against what we already know and more often than not we find flaw instead of explore further on the potential of the innovation. This happens more in Asia (since I am from there) where I think people are more conservative and it takes time for them to get new things into their life.
How we can change that? It would be a long process and maybe non-related to innovation itself. It would be more of a change in society's view. For example, MTV/HBO brings the American culture to the world, encouraging culture exchange and a new way of thinking. It has nothing to do with innovation, but it makes ppl more receptive to new ideas.
The most constrained domain of social innovation is societal. Rules and regulations in a country are based on past occurrences, not future possibilities. Government judges people based on past precedent, and as a societal norm, people tend to act in the same way. As long as the government continues to act in this way, society will follow.
To alter the trend, we need to effect change at a higher level. Regulation must be changed in order to include rules that foster innovation, rather than stifle it. Politicians also need to focus more on the positive aspects of their campaigns, rather than the negative pieces of their competition (a pipe dream, but one worth having). Pushing constituents and followers to look at innovation and change as a positive measure, regardless of the topic will aid in reversing adverse societal attitudes in the present.
(It is not domain, but) Japan. It is claimed Japan has suffered from “the Galapagos Syndrome”; that means Japan has been evolving in isolation from globalization. I think that phenomenon comes from Japanese social constraints which are prevalent recently: social values based on a kind of inward (domestic) mindset, unique industrial (economic) structure focusing on only domestic market, poor political strategy (as always), etc.
Some people say it is not bad because it can be a good chance to generate unique products (or cultures, values) and Japan still has a huge economic power. Well, maybe yes. Iguanas evolved uniquely and are still living in Galapagos Islands. But they are suffering from external impacts such as climate change and non-native animals, and about to be listed as endangered. Japan faces the serious concerns of rapid aging and very low birthrate, and losing international competitiveness during “lost two decades”. Fortunately iguanas are protected under the law. Whereas, who will protect Japan when it gets into similar situation…? We need innovation at a national level. Be bold Japan!
But I am still struggling to find how we might go about changing that situation…
I like and agree with Krystal's post on the domain of education. A year ago I may have said that health care was the area that was most constrained, but through my experience in the healthcare immersion this year, I was exposed to a number of very innovative new models, similar to the ones that Megan listed. I think we are seeing much more consumer-driven healthcare and that trend will continue.
It is the domain of education that really concerns me, and I think that one of the fundamental and inherent problems that may keep this domain constrained is the low value and salary given to teachers. Our society talks about the value and importance of education but when it comes to allocating budget resources, education is cut first. I also believe we need to treat schools more like businesses, and monitor the performance and output of the employees there like we do in corporations.
There are many communities and countries doing amazing things in education and I think there needs to be more best practice sharing and less of "that won't work here" excuses.
I am going to try and respond to Beeland's post without crossing any offensive boundaries....
Beeland has a pretty interesting point, and I believe this has historically been true, however in the last 5-10 years it is becoming a less difficult arena to innovate.
We learned that the ability to gather new information is one of the individual constraints that inhibits innovation and I believe this to be a primary force against sexual innovation. Learning is primarily passed on through experience with partners, and monogamous relationships do not allow for the entry of new information.
Where I disagree is that with the ability to anonymously access a variety of websites on the internet regarding this topic, it is now easier to gather new information and potentially innovate. To Beeland's point, there is a general fear and sense of embarrassment surrounding this topic that keeps people from openly communicating with others to learn. The anonymity of the internet can allow a monogamous couple to gather new information and increase their ability to innovate.
I am going to try to respond to Beeland's post carefully to avoid any offensive content...
I think Beeland's point is very interesting but I would argue that innovation is more possible due to technology advances in the last 10 years.
We learned that one individual constraint to innovation is the ability to gather information. In Beeland's example, gathering new innovation usually occurs through experience with partners. This makes innovation difficult to gain rapid adoption, and this also makes monogamous relationships particularly difficult to have innovation.
Beeland acknowledges the fear and embarrassment surrounding this topic, and this has historically limited the gathering of new information through conventional methods such as verbal or written communication (ie no one wants to go to a bookstore and buy a book about this topic, or speak with their neighbor about it). With the ability now to anonymously view websites and subscribe to content on the internet, the embarrassment that has traditionally limited the gathering of information now is removed.
If the constraint to sexual innovation is an individual constraint due to an inability to gather information, I believe this problem is being solved because of internet anonymity.
This is my third try at posting this, so I apologize if this ends up being a repeat post.
Also, I'm attempting to respond to Beeland's post, and hope to do so as appropriately as possible...
I think Beeland makes a very interesting point, however, I believe that some of the innovation constraints have been removed in recent years with the advancement of the internet.
In class we learned that one of the individual constraints to innovation is the ability to gather knowledge. Historically, gathering knowledge in Beeland's example involves learning from new partners. This limits rapid adoption of any innovation, and also isolates groups from innovation, such as monogamous couples.
Beeland points out that embarrassment and fear limit people's innovation ability in this example. I agree, and believe these forces keep people from wanting to gather new information. For example, I would not use verbal or written communication to learn new trends to innovate (ex. I would not ask a neighbor or check out a book at a library because of embarrassment).
I believe that the anonymity of the internet and the ability to find content without any embarrassment facilitates innovation in this example. Now people can overcome this constraint through various sources of information that can be accessed without shame.
If the constraint to innovation is people's ability to learn about new innovations, the anonymity of the internet helps to limit this constraint and foster innovation. Fear not Beeland!
I am interested in societal constraints on a company-by-company basis. I know this sounds kind of counterintuitive, but I think it's interesting how companies create their own "society" norms. For example, I worked in the entertainment industry before b-school. This should be a cutting-edge, creative, "innovative" company - but it definitely was not. They were purely focused on the status quo. They were unable to accept outside ideas or anything out of the ordinary. I have often wondered - why is that? What made them so stuck in their ways? I think a lot of it had to do with the societal constraints of the geographic area. Let's be honest, East Tennessee isn't a hotbed of open-mindedness.
BUT I do think it could be changed. What it takes is someone to shake things up a bit. And people need to have a reference point and familiarity with a new idea, process, or even product. Someone has to show them the way. They're not going to just figure it out on their own. In my old company's case, they could change their societal thoughts by slowly being exposed to different ideas. If it's more of a transition as opposed to an abrupt change, things would move much more smoothly. But societal change involves planting a seed and letting it grow. It's just a matter of who is capable of planting it?
I see the political struggle in public policy as the most constrained domain of social innovation. Whether it's health care, education, or other issues, the differences in beliefs turn into power struggles. Consequently, rules and regulations take time to be established, and the implementation and adoption become even slower. With speed of adoption being such an important aspect of innovation, social innovations often get stalled.
Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to change people and their beliefs. I think the "solution" ultimately comes down to accepting differences and understanding the overall objective. If the public, the elected officials, and the policy makers can somehow find ways to collaborate instead of compete on finding ways to reach the common goal, there's hope to social innovation. While all of this sounds a bit idealistic, but when it comes down to fundamental differences, we can only hope that an optimal compromise can be efficiently reached.
What's the most constrained domain of social innovation of interest to you? I am not sure if education is the most constrained domain, but I do know that education is one domain that has the most potential to change and is of greatest interest to me.
Why is it that way? How might one go about changing that? It is because of the traditional methodology of teaching. I think the methodology has worked well and we need to keep working on it to perfect it. Additionally, education has become too centralized every thing has to follow set of rules and needs x number of approvals. Centralization of curriculum has its advantages but we need to find ways to innovate around the disadvantages of centralized education. Lastly, I think the system does not take advantage of the wisdom and experience of long time teachers and that to me a big negative.
Technology has come along and can address issues such as access and cost. Here is an interesting video about this topic http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Yes, Jake has a good point. Anything that involves changing people's ways and beliefs is going to be constrained. People do not like to change. Change is hard. What's interesting to think about is the role that the press plays (particularly in the US) in bolstering or thwarting innovation. To think about something like health care, it seems like the press is more focused on getting bogged down in the politics of it than in acutal good innovations that are in progress or have come onto the market recently.
What's the most constrained domain of social innovation of interest to you? Why is it that way? How might one go about changing that?
I am having a very hard time selecting only one domain that is 'the most constrained.' I believe that all of those listed above are -- admittedly and inherently -- constrained. The one that is 'the most' depends on the particular fashions or focus of a society in question.
I think that the one that is of the most interest to me, given our recent discussions, is that of transportation. Any new product or idea (such as the electric car or the segway) that interacts or interferes with current infrastructure will meet with overwhelming defeat. I think the only way to go about changing that is to, first and foremost - understand the public's needs, patterns, and constraints. Then, one must get to understand and to know the system from the inside out.
In my opinion, the most constrained domain of social innovation is pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals are some of the most scrutinized products in America. The main reason of course, our health. The FDA's job is to protect our health. The pharmaceutical companies' job is to make money. And let's face it, people are willing to spend any amount on their health. These three factors can easily create a conflict of interest; sell drugs to people to make money, whether or not they are safe to use. As a result, innovation in this domain, has a high level of scrutiny.
Honesty, I do not know how to one can go about changing this scrutiny. It is a necessary check and balance to the capitalistic structure of our health care system. Regardless of how stifling the FDA is though, pharma companies will always find a way to get their products to market; whether they are good for us or not.
Hiro made a good point of constraint for Japan. The most constrained domain of social innovation (in Japan) is economic structure which includes a continuous decrease of working population. Other point may be a structure of financial market which is not favorable for start-up (new and small) companies with innovative technology and ideas. Even they are able to make innovative products, they cannot go to the public due to the strong regulation and lack of investors. As a result, they face financial constraint.
Japanese people are very risk averse. Therefore, Japanese government and financial companies have to come up with plan which support new investors and give them incentives to do that in addition to deregulation for start-up companies. These companies may lead Japanese economy for long-term.
To me the most constrained domain of social innovation would be the critiques for entrepreneurs and new idea implementers. Usually it's so hard to create a new idea and put it into something useful and meaningful to improve human being's life, concerned that ideas only come to one's mind when certain situation really needs to improve...that's then called innovation. Yet a lot of cases are people won't appreciate such efforts. Most people want the status quo and don't really embrace any changes. The emotional concerns are so strong that they don't follow the normal reasoning when they shoot the negative comments. For example, the first digital camera case we saw in class, the iPad, etc. iPad's success was largely due to Apple's marketing strategy and growing customer base. When more and more people become to appreciate the product, things change drastically. Then what if the new product is created by a very small company? The comments would just grab away all the interests and revenue and unless the new product line is acquired by a big company, the story would be very hard to continue.
To me the most constrained domain of social innovation would be the critiques for entrepreneurs and new idea implementers. Usually it's so hard to create a new idea and put it into something useful and meaningful to improve human being's life, concerned that ideas only come to one's mind when certain situation really needs to improve...that's then called innovation. Yet a lot of cases are people won't appreciate such efforts. Most people want the status quo and don't really embrace any changes. The emotional concerns are so strong that they don't follow the normal reasoning when they shoot the negative comments. For example, the first digital camera case we saw in class, the iPad, etc. iPad's success was largely due to Apple's marketing strategy and growing customer base. When more and more people become to appreciate the product, things change drastically. Then what if the new product is created by a very small company? The comments would just grab away all the interests and revenue and unless the new product line is acquired by a big company, the story would be very hard to continue.
The most constrained domain is religion, or perhaps more specifically tolerance of alternative religions or forms of spirituality. This has become a more prominent topic in this country since September 11. To date, I have yet to see any truly innovative approaches to building bridges between faiths that could begin to make progress. At times it even feels like we have gone backwards in thought, characterizations, and solutions. Some may even view this as the Crusades of this century, but I don't think this backward thinking will result in 21st century solutions.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was very innovative in his approach to overcoming prejudice and segregation of African Americans. However, today's fire hoses come spewing from the mouths of talk show hosts and guests and all across the internet on blogs. Fortunately, interracial and interfaith marriages are on the rise. So while time is not innovative, it may bring a generation that is more accepting. This generation may have a different view, which might bring forth new and innovative ideas for resolving our differences.
I would agree with Krystal and Kristen that the most constrained domain is education. Since only is funding tight, districts with more money are able to attract better qualified teachers. This perpetuates the chasm between the low and high class areas and makes it extremely challenging to innovate in lower socioeconomic areas.
Teach for America, for example, and mentoring organizations are fighting an uphill battle. A couple friends have worked for TFA and the challenges they face have been phenomenal. Without exceptional innovative leadership, the teacher can only do so much. As our generation gets older and will someday have children in school, it seems that paying for private education will be increasingly necessary.
We have tremendous opportunity to be involved in local schools and offer our experiences and perspectives. The educational system needs our support.
I agree with a lot that has been said about education. I think Krystal makes a lot of good points. But I think the major constraint on education reform is not necessarily tradition that is hampering innovation but rather a teacher’s union that is too strong and too entrenched. The union has too much influence over the culture and direction of education within the United States in addition to protecting poor quality teachers and blocking measures and innovations that could improve the quality of public education. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to overcome this constraint without major federal and state legislation and the cooperation of the teachers union.
I would have to agree with Chris. Organizations are the most constrained domain for social innovation. Has companies grow larger it becomes more difficult to change the direction of the organization. Today, during our time with the Strategic Innovation group, I was part of brainstorming with Hersey, a company that is over 100 years old. Things there don’t just change overnight; it takes forever to not only realize a change but to appreciate it. We were told that the executives of Hersey are just now accepting the Reese’s merger as a good thing. Whether this is a stretched truth or not, it represents how long it takes for bigger companies to innovate.
These companies tend to be set in their ways and satisfied with the status quo. Also they have a lot at risk if an innovation fails. However, this could be changed, as we might see with Hersey, if the company chooses to hire more innovative people. These people would have to be accepted within the company and potential given a C-level representation. A case would have to be made as to how innovation could better the company, their brand, and their bottom line. Overall, I know it’s a hard change to make, but as competition grows, companies might realize that innovation is necessary to maintain brand loyalty and market share.
I think that norms are the most constrained domain of social innovation. I've worked at Fortune 50 companies that are barely a decade old and run into constant issues with implementing new and innovative social ideas because of a lengthy approval process. Unless you have a direct connection with someone higher up who supports your ideas, it is tough to get heard.
One way to go about changing that is to initiate water-cooler chats and to get people on board with you individually, so that you will have support behind your ideas. Most people are quick to make judgments once they hear a radical new idea so they sometimes might miss the bigger picture. By talking to people and spreading the word, you might be more likely to get people to back up your ideas, and perhaps even receive suggestions of improvement during the process.
Change is scary. Where society creates the largest constraint is in our mass. I agree with Elizabeth and An, that it is our social values and social control which is the largest constraint. To combat it, I think this means that we always need to start small – with a small, targeted population. Think of the peace-loving hippies, or recently of the “green” initiative. Yea, it started with tree-huggers, but now we’re all focused on being green. Facebook started with the college-age kids, and now has expanded to include everyone up to grandparents. Healthcare has had effective change/impact in the VA, Mayo Clinic, and Anderson facilities – which many healthcare systems are now trying to emulate. I think the most detrimental is to start on a mass scale and fail. Our society does not have the patience or the trust to give something another try. Additionally, innovation must ensure that social values and control do not inhibit the innovation from being adopted. As exemplified by the Segway…
I was intrigued by Cam’s post on religion and the notion that the tolerance of alternative religions and forms of spirituality is highly constrained. I agree that it seems we don’t see many bridges being built across the different faiths. I think there is also a fair amount of social rejection of “blended religion” individuals who may come from families with parents of two different faiths. Even here at Owen, I’ve seen people react quite skeptically to a Christian professor articulating his passion for Buddhist ideas, and I’ve heard a Christian student get teased for his interest in a book on Judaism. There is an absence of innovation in embracing or resolving religious or spiritual differences.
I agree with Cindy's comment that norms are the most constrained domain of social innovation. I particularly notice this on the Vanderbilt/Owen campus.
Working on the senate I find it nearly impossible to make changes for improvement - particularly in the spaces of technology and curriculum. Technology goes out of date very quickly and there doesn't appear to be an emphasis on using the latest and greatest. Some may argue that it's cost ineffective to upgrade frequently, but there's also a cost in having our students lagging universities like Stanford and MIT that embrace technology better.
On the curriculum side, let's just say that norms regarding tenure are very frustrating when it comes to changing how a class should be taught...
I would say the US Government is the most constrained. Nothing can be accomplished because of so many special interests, difference in opinion, lack of motivation, media...the list can go on and on. Unfortunately those who have innovative solutions to solve many of the problems our US government faces do not wish to go into the public sector because of the constraints, this it's just a vicious cycle.
While am not a huge supporter of the Obama Healthcare plan, there are some very intriguing aspects of social innovation in a nationalize healthcare plan... just hear me out for one minute.
In my opinion healthcare is one of the most constrained of social innovations. Many brilliant entrepreneurial minds, capable of creating innovative new businesses are locked into their regular 9-5 job because of the healthcare benefits that they receive for themselves and often for their families. How many times have you heard someone say, "well the job isn't great but I need the healthcare benefits"?
We need a healthcare option for entrepreneurs and their families to spur innovation through the next decade in the U.S. and we need it soon. As Lexi said the government is the most constrained and I personally don't believe that the government is the best entity to tackle this issue, so how can we reform healthcare to help spur innovation?
I swore I wasn't going to do an "I agree with" post - but Lexi brought up a great point about government being constrained. Lawmakers get pulled in every direction imaginable, and have an exorbitant amount of stakeholders that all claim right to their decision-making process. And every single move they make is criticized (rightly or wrongly) by everyone else.
I will end with a quote from Chuck Klosterman's IV that I think perfectly nails society's thoughts that form their constraints (the last half being tied directly to government sentiments, but the first half is important in explaining societal tendencies):
"Here's the first step to happiness: don't get mad that people who aren't you happen to think Paris Hilton is interesting and deserves to be on tv every other day; the fame surrounding Paris Hilton is not a reflection on your life (unless you want it to be). Don't get mad because the Yeah Yeah Yeahs aren't on the radio enough; you can buy the f*cking record and play "Maps" all f*cking day (if that's what you want). Don't get mad because people didn't vote the way you voted; you knew this was a democracy when you agreed to participate, so you knew this was how things might work out. Basically, don't get mad over the fact that the way you feel about culture isn't some kind of universal consensus. Because if you do, you will end up feeling betrayed. And it will be your own fault."
I just found a GREAT article (on Fast Company's Co.Design, and, as it happens, written by IDEO) about "How To Turn Social Taboos into Innovative Products." It discuss taking socially off-limits subjects (like going to the bathroom, erectile dysfunction, masturbation, menstrual cycles) that may affect your business, and embracing them as opportunities to serve a market instead of hiding from them.
A fantastic quick read: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662478/ideo-how-to-turn-social-taboos-into-innovative-products
We all know that change is difficult and as human beings, it is difficult for us to accept change. We like our routines, and generally are more comfortable with tradition, therefore new concepts and ideas are difficult to be adopted. I definitely agree with many of my classmates that the most constrained domain of social innovation is law and politics. I think that since the government and public policy is based on past policies, precedents and tradition like KJ mentioned, it is difficult to get away from these and truly "innovate."
In addition, when there is the potential for change, like with Obama's Healthcare plan, it is met with a lot of resistance. Society and our beliefs and norms tend to be the biggest barrier to innovation as we are reluctant to adopt new ideas, concepts, strategies and innovations even though they may be for the better.
I'm not sure what it will take for us to move past this, but I think that over time with our acceptance of small, incremental changes changes, we will be more receptive to larger changes as a whole. Or at least I hope so!
"Social Innovation goes beyond customer interaction and idea generation; it requires a powerful and coordinated network of players to take customer-generated innovation and to test, scale and implement it" - Nigel Fenwick (Forrester Blog).
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion societal norms and traditions seem to pose the biggest constraint to social innovation. I take that view from a Marketers standpoint, because attempts to change consumer behavior with product invention are often met with failure. Sure, there a multitude of factors that determine the success of product introductions, yet it seems apparent to me that victories would be more likely if humans weren't such creatures of habit.
I'm not confident that will ever change; especially when I think about changing my own routine for a new product - not gonna happen! But, if humans were all rational beings, than I think articulating the value add or the clear benefit to the consumer could entice them to buck their norms.
Educational Reform is a particularly interesting form of social innovation that seems to be constrained by public opinion of what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteParents want top quality education for their children. Employers want highly skilled future labor pools. Society wants a responsible new generation that will be able to tackle problems threatening our sustainability as a nation. However, nobody wants change.
Social entrepreneurs have been trying to address these needs and have come up with innovative solutions to the problem. Charter schools, longer hours, administrative systems that force competition among schools, paying teachers equivalent salaries to that of a corporate professional, and firing under-performing teachers are some of the ideas that have been implemented in small pockets across the country. And in many of these places, the public backlash is loud and clear. "You can't do that to our children!" "What about teachers that have devoted their lives to teaching? This is not the way you are supposed to teach a particular subject! School shouldn't be a competitive environment! Where are we going to find the money to pay our teachers so much?"
It seems to me that Americans are letting tradition get in the way of innovation. They don't want to make drastic changes to a system that has been in place for 100 years and worked well for them. It's time we realize that what worked well in the past will not be good enough to meet the demands of the future.
Social innovation is defined as ‘innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social’. In this sense, the healthcare industry might be the most constrained domain of interest to me.
ReplyDeleteIt is constrained in the view of the long development cycle, strict regulations, extremely low frequency of invention as well as its complicated components including medicine, surgery and health system. Innovations in medicine and surgery have to survive numerous harsh tests so as to be applied; therefore, the high demands on resources, talents, and time throughout the whole developing process might daunt lots of creative efforts in this field. Moreover, the breakthrough in health system is the result of mutual reinforcement in economic, social and technical development.
It’s very hard to change this situation since everything related to our life and health deserve extra caution and therefore long test period. The only way is to put more motivation for innovative efforts in healthcare industry so that people would like to invest their whole life for a single invention.
What's the most constrained domain of social innovation of interest to you? Why is it that way? How might one go about changing that?
ReplyDeleteI am most interested in social needs involving community service and the charitable giving of time (rather than money). I found this to be a topic of interest from my experience in this space as both a member of our community service club at Owen and as a person who grew up volunteering and in a family which encouraged nonprofit work.
I think that charitable giving of time is very constrained because people have limited time and money. When individuals aren't at work, they want to exercise, relax, and spend time with family and friends. Since volunteering often involves sharing a skill, such as tutoring, I feel that individuals might wish to be paid for their service rather than do it for free.
At Owen, a group of us are working to create some kind of incentive for students, staff, and faculty to become more involved in the local Nashville community. We're currently discussing an honor code-like pledge in which students would personally sign and commit to community service, rather than mandating service as many high schools have done. I think that companies have already engaged in some of this service encouragement with their charitable foundations, senior leadership sitting on boards of local nonprofits, or company service days, but also that we have a long way to go!
I want to follow up on Angela’s comment about health care. I agree with her that there are some serious social norms built around health care, supported by extremely strict regulation. I also think there is some “guild behavior” in the way that different types of health care experts take ownership of particular spaces, and that those behaviors have been institutionalized in the health care systems. For example, why do we have to go to a doctor to get a prescription for medicine for things like the flu, and ear infection, or chicken pox? Many simple maladies are easily diagnosed by a nurse practitioner or even a nurse, yet we have built a system where you have to go to such a costly “expert” for resolution.
ReplyDeleteAlso, health care is a space where it is still taboo to talk about things like “cost”. That’s why you almost never pay for things until your appointment is over. How many of us are even really sure what is covered under our health insurance? It’s totally insane and financially unsustainable.
That’s why I think the innovations in the health care service space are so interesting. Companies like Minute Clinic are trying to step into that space and find a low-cost but effective alternative. I’m all for a little competition too.
Sexual innovation has to number one. There are probably some people doing some interesting and innovative things behind their bedroom doors.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of if you think it is disgusting or innovative, there is probably someone who would consider the act innovative. People, however, won't ever talk about it for fear of being looked down on.
I'm not proposing that the act of sex has a lot of need for innovation, but the fact of the matter is that we are doing it the same way we did it 1000 years ago.
I would say that the most constrained domain of social innovation would be the law and politics, and a good example of this is the California proposition to legalize marijuana. It is interesting that because marijuana has been illegal for years, and marijuana users are looked down on by society, it is unlikely that any such proposition would pass in the near future. The reality is, however, that there is potential for the legalization of marijuana to be an innovative way for the government to increase its revenue and decrease its deficit. I think one of the reasons for the fact that societal constraints are large barriers to progress and innovation in the law is that it takes majority votes in numerous processes to pass a law. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does constrain changes and progress.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Chrissy that the most constratined domain of societal innovation is law and politics. The main players in these roles are afraid to make drastice legal changes for fear of pilitical suicide. Politcians that care about their careers would have a hard time supporting legal innovations that could be controversial. It is hard to make recommendations around fixing this constraint. Politicians are required to be conscious of their constituents' opions and persepctives. Controversial issues cause the general public to pasionately oppose or be proponents of proposed changes. The only politicians who dont care about constituents opioins are teh ones who will never be elected or those who are term limited.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, very generally, large organizations are the most constrained domain for social innovation. It’s often said that small companies are the most nimble and have the least risk when it comes to innovation. The reason is that large companies have processes in place that prevent themselves and their employees from going “off course”.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though the organizational size, coordination mechanisms, functional relationships and overall structure of organizations present a variety of constraints that encourages silos at large companies. I also believe that, in contrast with smaller companies, there are many more constraints that exist from the outset of any project in large organizations. For this reason, those that seek to innovate are most likely to take the path of least resistance – within their own department. They essentially limit their vision based on all of these constraints that exist up front. As these departments evolve and grow, they become entities that are more and more dissimilar to the rest of the organization and very much a product of the local processes. The result is a silo that offers yet more resistance to cross-organization innovation.
In order to change the structural constraints, I think it only makes sense to rethink how large organizations are structured. Of course, it’s more communication across departments, but I think the key is to ensure that employees at all levels have a more cross-disciplinary knowledge of how the company functions. Migrating managers throughout the organization in rotational programs is becoming more and more common, and I think this is in reaction to the aforementioned silos.
I think the most constrained domain of social innovation is the society's prejudice and norm. We all grow up in some kind of norms that form the way we see things. When new things come up, we tend to judge them against what we already know and more often than not we find flaw instead of explore further on the potential of the innovation. This happens more in Asia (since I am from there) where I think people are more conservative and it takes time for them to get new things into their life.
ReplyDeleteHow we can change that? It would be a long process and maybe non-related to innovation itself. It would be more of a change in society's view. For example, MTV/HBO brings the American culture to the world, encouraging culture exchange and a new way of thinking. It has nothing to do with innovation, but it makes ppl more receptive to new ideas.
The most constrained domain of social innovation is societal. Rules and regulations in a country are based on past occurrences, not future possibilities. Government judges people based on past precedent, and as a societal norm, people tend to act in the same way. As long as the government continues to act in this way, society will follow.
ReplyDeleteTo alter the trend, we need to effect change at a higher level. Regulation must be changed in order to include rules that foster innovation, rather than stifle it. Politicians also need to focus more on the positive aspects of their campaigns, rather than the negative pieces of their competition (a pipe dream, but one worth having). Pushing constituents and followers to look at innovation and change as a positive measure, regardless of the topic will aid in reversing adverse societal attitudes in the present.
(It is not domain, but) Japan. It is claimed Japan has suffered from “the Galapagos Syndrome”; that means Japan has been evolving in isolation from globalization. I think that phenomenon comes from Japanese social constraints which are prevalent recently: social values based on a kind of inward (domestic) mindset, unique industrial (economic) structure focusing on only domestic market, poor political strategy (as always), etc.
ReplyDeleteSome people say it is not bad because it can be a good chance to generate unique products (or cultures, values) and Japan still has a huge economic power. Well, maybe yes. Iguanas evolved uniquely and are still living in Galapagos Islands. But they are suffering from external impacts such as climate change and non-native animals, and about to be listed as endangered. Japan faces the serious concerns of rapid aging and very low birthrate, and losing international competitiveness during “lost two decades”. Fortunately iguanas are protected under the law. Whereas, who will protect Japan when it gets into similar situation…? We need innovation at a national level. Be bold Japan!
But I am still struggling to find how we might go about changing that situation…
I like and agree with Krystal's post on the domain of education. A year ago I may have said that health care was the area that was most constrained, but through my experience in the healthcare immersion this year, I was exposed to a number of very innovative new models, similar to the ones that Megan listed. I think we are seeing much more consumer-driven healthcare and that trend will continue.
ReplyDeleteIt is the domain of education that really concerns me, and I think that one of the fundamental and inherent problems that may keep this domain constrained is the low value and salary given to teachers. Our society talks about the value and importance of education but when it comes to allocating budget resources, education is cut first. I also believe we need to treat schools more like businesses, and monitor the performance and output of the employees there like we do in corporations.
There are many communities and countries doing amazing things in education and I think there needs to be more best practice sharing and less of "that won't work here" excuses.
I am going to try and respond to Beeland's post without crossing any offensive boundaries....
ReplyDeleteBeeland has a pretty interesting point, and I believe this has historically been true, however in the last 5-10 years it is becoming a less difficult arena to innovate.
We learned that the ability to gather new information is one of the individual constraints that inhibits innovation and I believe this to be a primary force against sexual innovation. Learning is primarily passed on through experience with partners, and monogamous relationships do not allow for the entry of new information.
Where I disagree is that with the ability to anonymously access a variety of websites on the internet regarding this topic, it is now easier to gather new information and potentially innovate. To Beeland's point, there is a general fear and sense of embarrassment surrounding this topic that keeps people from openly communicating with others to learn. The anonymity of the internet can allow a monogamous couple to gather new information and increase their ability to innovate.
I am going to try to respond to Beeland's post carefully to avoid any offensive content...
ReplyDeleteI think Beeland's point is very interesting but I would argue that innovation is more possible due to technology advances in the last 10 years.
We learned that one individual constraint to innovation is the ability to gather information. In Beeland's example, gathering new innovation usually occurs through experience with partners. This makes innovation difficult to gain rapid adoption, and this also makes monogamous relationships particularly difficult to have innovation.
Beeland acknowledges the fear and embarrassment surrounding this topic, and this has historically limited the gathering of new information through conventional methods such as verbal or written communication (ie no one wants to go to a bookstore and buy a book about this topic, or speak with their neighbor about it). With the ability now to anonymously view websites and subscribe to content on the internet, the embarrassment that has traditionally limited the gathering of information now is removed.
If the constraint to sexual innovation is an individual constraint due to an inability to gather information, I believe this problem is being solved because of internet anonymity.
This is my third try at posting this, so I apologize if this ends up being a repeat post.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm attempting to respond to Beeland's post, and hope to do so as appropriately as possible...
I think Beeland makes a very interesting point, however, I believe that some of the innovation constraints have been removed in recent years with the advancement of the internet.
In class we learned that one of the individual constraints to innovation is the ability to gather knowledge. Historically, gathering knowledge in Beeland's example involves learning from new partners. This limits rapid adoption of any innovation, and also isolates groups from innovation, such as monogamous couples.
Beeland points out that embarrassment and fear limit people's innovation ability in this example. I agree, and believe these forces keep people from wanting to gather new information. For example, I would not use verbal or written communication to learn new trends to innovate (ex. I would not ask a neighbor or check out a book at a library because of embarrassment).
I believe that the anonymity of the internet and the ability to find content without any embarrassment facilitates innovation in this example. Now people can overcome this constraint through various sources of information that can be accessed without shame.
If the constraint to innovation is people's ability to learn about new innovations, the anonymity of the internet helps to limit this constraint and foster innovation. Fear not Beeland!
I am interested in societal constraints on a company-by-company basis. I know this sounds kind of counterintuitive, but I think it's interesting how companies create their own "society" norms. For example, I worked in the entertainment industry before b-school. This should be a cutting-edge, creative, "innovative" company - but it definitely was not. They were purely focused on the status quo. They were unable to accept outside ideas or anything out of the ordinary. I have often wondered - why is that? What made them so stuck in their ways? I think a lot of it had to do with the societal constraints of the geographic area. Let's be honest, East Tennessee isn't a hotbed of open-mindedness.
ReplyDeleteBUT I do think it could be changed. What it takes is someone to shake things up a bit. And people need to have a reference point and familiarity with a new idea, process, or even product. Someone has to show them the way. They're not going to just figure it out on their own. In my old company's case, they could change their societal thoughts by slowly being exposed to different ideas. If it's more of a transition as opposed to an abrupt change, things would move much more smoothly. But societal change involves planting a seed and letting it grow. It's just a matter of who is capable of planting it?
I see the political struggle in public policy as the most constrained domain of social innovation. Whether it's health care, education, or other issues, the differences in beliefs turn into power struggles. Consequently, rules and regulations take time to be established, and the implementation and adoption become even slower. With speed of adoption being such an important aspect of innovation, social innovations often get stalled.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there is no easy solution to change people and their beliefs. I think the "solution" ultimately comes down to accepting differences and understanding the overall objective. If the public, the elected officials, and the policy makers can somehow find ways to collaborate instead of compete on finding ways to reach the common goal, there's hope to social innovation. While all of this sounds a bit idealistic, but when it comes down to fundamental differences, we can only hope that an optimal compromise can be efficiently reached.
What's the most constrained domain of social innovation of interest to you?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if education is the most constrained domain, but I do know that education is one domain that has the most potential to change and is of greatest interest to me.
Why is it that way? How might one go about changing that?
It is because of the traditional methodology of teaching. I think the methodology has worked well and we need to keep working on it to perfect it.
Additionally, education has become too centralized every thing has to follow set of rules and needs x number of approvals. Centralization of curriculum has its advantages but we need to find ways to innovate around the disadvantages of centralized education.
Lastly, I think the system does not take advantage of the wisdom and experience of long time teachers and that to me a big negative.
Technology has come along and can address issues such as access and cost. Here is an interesting video about this topic http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Yes, Jake has a good point. Anything that involves changing people's ways and beliefs is going to be constrained. People do not like to change. Change is hard. What's interesting to think about is the role that the press plays (particularly in the US) in bolstering or thwarting innovation. To think about something like health care, it seems like the press is more focused on getting bogged down in the politics of it than in acutal good innovations that are in progress or have come onto the market recently.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the most constrained domain of social innovation of interest to you? Why is it that way? How might one go about changing that?
ReplyDeleteI am having a very hard time selecting only one domain that is 'the most constrained.' I believe that all of those listed above are -- admittedly and inherently -- constrained. The one that is 'the most' depends on the particular fashions or focus of a society in question.
I think that the one that is of the most interest to me, given our recent discussions, is that of transportation. Any new product or idea (such as the electric car or the segway) that interacts or interferes with current infrastructure will meet with overwhelming defeat. I think the only way to go about changing that is to, first and foremost - understand the public's needs, patterns, and constraints. Then, one must get to understand and to know the system from the inside out.
In my opinion, the most constrained domain of social innovation is pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals are some of the most scrutinized products in America. The main reason of course, our health. The FDA's job is to protect our health. The pharmaceutical companies' job is to make money. And let's face it, people are willing to spend any amount on their health. These three factors can easily create a conflict of interest; sell drugs to people to make money, whether or not they are safe to use. As a result, innovation in this domain, has a high level of scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteHonesty, I do not know how to one can go about changing this scrutiny. It is a necessary check and balance to the capitalistic structure of our health care system. Regardless of how stifling the FDA is though, pharma companies will always find a way to get their products to market; whether they are good for us or not.
Hiro made a good point of constraint for Japan. The most constrained domain of social innovation (in Japan) is economic structure which includes a continuous decrease of working population. Other point may be a structure of financial market which is not favorable for start-up (new and small) companies with innovative technology and ideas. Even they are able to make innovative products, they cannot go to the public due to the strong regulation and lack of investors. As a result, they face financial constraint.
ReplyDeleteJapanese people are very risk averse. Therefore, Japanese government and financial companies have to come up with plan which support new investors and give them incentives to do that in addition to deregulation for start-up companies. These companies may lead Japanese economy for long-term.
To me the most constrained domain of social innovation would be the critiques for entrepreneurs and new idea implementers. Usually it's so hard to create a new idea and put it into something useful and meaningful to improve human being's life, concerned that ideas only come to one's mind when certain situation really needs to improve...that's then called innovation. Yet a lot of cases are people won't appreciate such efforts. Most people want the status quo and don't really embrace any changes. The emotional concerns are so strong that they don't follow the normal reasoning when they shoot the negative comments. For example, the first digital camera case we saw in class, the iPad, etc. iPad's success was largely due to Apple's marketing strategy and growing customer base. When more and more people become to appreciate the product, things change drastically. Then what if the new product is created by a very small company? The comments would just grab away all the interests and revenue and unless the new product line is acquired by a big company, the story would be very hard to continue.
ReplyDeleteTo me the most constrained domain of social innovation would be the critiques for entrepreneurs and new idea implementers. Usually it's so hard to create a new idea and put it into something useful and meaningful to improve human being's life, concerned that ideas only come to one's mind when certain situation really needs to improve...that's then called innovation. Yet a lot of cases are people won't appreciate such efforts. Most people want the status quo and don't really embrace any changes. The emotional concerns are so strong that they don't follow the normal reasoning when they shoot the negative comments. For example, the first digital camera case we saw in class, the iPad, etc. iPad's success was largely due to Apple's marketing strategy and growing customer base. When more and more people become to appreciate the product, things change drastically. Then what if the new product is created by a very small company? The comments would just grab away all the interests and revenue and unless the new product line is acquired by a big company, the story would be very hard to continue.
ReplyDeleteThe most constrained domain is religion, or perhaps more specifically tolerance of alternative religions or forms of spirituality. This has become a more prominent topic in this country since September 11. To date, I have yet to see any truly innovative approaches to building bridges between faiths that could begin to make progress. At times it even feels like we have gone backwards in thought, characterizations, and solutions. Some may even view this as the Crusades of this century, but I don't think this backward thinking will result in 21st century solutions.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther King, Jr. was very innovative in his approach to overcoming prejudice and segregation of African Americans. However, today's fire hoses come spewing from the mouths of talk show hosts and guests and all across the internet on blogs. Fortunately, interracial and interfaith marriages are on the rise. So while time is not innovative, it may bring a generation that is more accepting. This generation may have a different view, which might bring forth new and innovative ideas for resolving our differences.
I would agree with Krystal and Kristen that the most constrained domain is education. Since only is funding tight, districts with more money are able to attract better qualified teachers. This perpetuates the chasm between the low and high class areas and makes it extremely challenging to innovate in lower socioeconomic areas.
ReplyDeleteTeach for America, for example, and mentoring organizations are fighting an uphill battle. A couple friends have worked for TFA and the challenges they face have been phenomenal. Without exceptional innovative leadership, the teacher can only do so much. As our generation gets older and will someday have children in school, it seems that paying for private education will be increasingly necessary.
We have tremendous opportunity to be involved in local schools and offer our experiences and perspectives. The educational system needs our support.
I agree with a lot that has been said about education. I think Krystal makes a lot of good points. But I think the major constraint on education reform is not necessarily tradition that is hampering innovation but rather a teacher’s union that is too strong and too entrenched. The union has too much influence over the culture and direction of education within the United States in addition to protecting poor quality teachers and blocking measures and innovations that could improve the quality of public education. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to overcome this constraint without major federal and state legislation and the cooperation of the teachers union.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Chris. Organizations are the most constrained domain for social innovation. Has companies grow larger it becomes more difficult to change the direction of the organization. Today, during our time with the Strategic Innovation group, I was part of brainstorming with Hersey, a company that is over 100 years old. Things there don’t just change overnight; it takes forever to not only realize a change but to appreciate it. We were told that the executives of Hersey are just now accepting the Reese’s merger as a good thing. Whether this is a stretched truth or not, it represents how long it takes for bigger companies to innovate.
ReplyDeleteThese companies tend to be set in their ways and satisfied with the status quo. Also they have a lot at risk if an innovation fails. However, this could be changed, as we might see with Hersey, if the company chooses to hire more innovative people. These people would have to be accepted within the company and potential given a C-level representation. A case would have to be made as to how innovation could better the company, their brand, and their bottom line. Overall, I know it’s a hard change to make, but as competition grows, companies might realize that innovation is necessary to maintain brand loyalty and market share.
I think that norms are the most constrained domain of social innovation. I've worked at Fortune 50 companies that are barely a decade old and run into constant issues with implementing new and innovative social ideas because of a lengthy approval process. Unless you have a direct connection with someone higher up who supports your ideas, it is tough to get heard.
ReplyDeleteOne way to go about changing that is to initiate water-cooler chats and to get people on board with you individually, so that you will have support behind your ideas. Most people are quick to make judgments once they hear a radical new idea so they sometimes might miss the bigger picture. By talking to people and spreading the word, you might be more likely to get people to back up your ideas, and perhaps even receive suggestions of improvement during the process.
Change is scary. Where society creates the largest constraint is in our mass. I agree with Elizabeth and An, that it is our social values and social control which is the largest constraint.
ReplyDeleteTo combat it, I think this means that we always need to start small – with a small, targeted population. Think of the peace-loving hippies, or recently of the “green” initiative. Yea, it started with tree-huggers, but now we’re all focused on being green. Facebook started with the college-age kids, and now has expanded to include everyone up to grandparents. Healthcare has had effective change/impact in the VA, Mayo Clinic, and Anderson facilities – which many healthcare systems are now trying to emulate.
I think the most detrimental is to start on a mass scale and fail. Our society does not have the patience or the trust to give something another try. Additionally, innovation must ensure that social values and control do not inhibit the innovation from being adopted. As exemplified by the Segway…
I was intrigued by Cam’s post on religion and the notion that the tolerance of alternative religions and forms of spirituality is highly constrained. I agree that it seems we don’t see many bridges being built across the different faiths. I think there is also a fair amount of social rejection of “blended religion” individuals who may come from families with parents of two different faiths. Even here at Owen, I’ve seen people react quite skeptically to a Christian professor articulating his passion for Buddhist ideas, and I’ve heard a Christian student get teased for his interest in a book on Judaism. There is an absence of innovation in embracing or resolving religious or spiritual differences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cindy's comment that norms are the most constrained domain of social innovation. I particularly notice this on the Vanderbilt/Owen campus.
ReplyDeleteWorking on the senate I find it nearly impossible to make changes for improvement - particularly in the spaces of technology and curriculum. Technology goes out of date very quickly and there doesn't appear to be an emphasis on using the latest and greatest. Some may argue that it's cost ineffective to upgrade frequently, but there's also a cost in having our students lagging universities like Stanford and MIT that embrace technology better.
On the curriculum side, let's just say that norms regarding tenure are very frustrating when it comes to changing how a class should be taught...
I would say the US Government is the most constrained. Nothing can be accomplished because of so many special interests, difference in opinion, lack of motivation, media...the list can go on and on. Unfortunately those who have innovative solutions to solve many of the problems our US government faces do not wish to go into the public sector because of the constraints, this it's just a vicious cycle.
ReplyDeleteWhile am not a huge supporter of the Obama Healthcare plan, there are some very intriguing aspects of social innovation in a nationalize healthcare plan... just hear me out for one minute.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion healthcare is one of the most constrained of social innovations. Many brilliant entrepreneurial minds, capable of creating innovative new businesses are locked into their regular 9-5 job because of the healthcare benefits that they receive for themselves and often for their families. How many times have you heard someone say, "well the job isn't great but I need the healthcare benefits"?
We need a healthcare option for entrepreneurs and their families to spur innovation through the next decade in the U.S. and we need it soon. As Lexi said the government is the most constrained and I personally don't believe that the government is the best entity to tackle this issue, so how can we reform healthcare to help spur innovation?
I swore I wasn't going to do an "I agree with" post - but Lexi brought up a great point about government being constrained. Lawmakers get pulled in every direction imaginable, and have an exorbitant amount of stakeholders that all claim right to their decision-making process. And every single move they make is criticized (rightly or wrongly) by everyone else.
ReplyDeleteI will end with a quote from Chuck Klosterman's IV that I think perfectly nails society's thoughts that form their constraints (the last half being tied directly to government sentiments, but the first half is important in explaining societal tendencies):
"Here's the first step to happiness: don't get mad that people who aren't you happen to think Paris Hilton is interesting and deserves to be on tv every other day; the fame surrounding Paris Hilton is not a reflection on your life (unless you want it to be). Don't get mad because the Yeah Yeah Yeahs aren't on the radio enough; you can buy the f*cking record and play "Maps" all f*cking day (if that's what you want). Don't get mad because people didn't vote the way you voted; you knew this was a democracy when you agreed to participate, so you knew this was how things might work out. Basically, don't get mad over the fact that the way you feel about culture isn't some kind of universal consensus. Because if you do, you will end up feeling betrayed. And it will be your own fault."
I just found a GREAT article (on Fast Company's Co.Design, and, as it happens, written by IDEO) about "How To Turn Social Taboos into Innovative Products." It discuss taking socially off-limits subjects (like going to the bathroom, erectile dysfunction, masturbation, menstrual cycles) that may affect your business, and embracing them as opportunities to serve a market instead of hiding from them.
ReplyDeleteA fantastic quick read:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662478/ideo-how-to-turn-social-taboos-into-innovative-products
We all know that change is difficult and as human beings, it is difficult for us to accept change. We like our routines, and generally are more comfortable with tradition, therefore new concepts and ideas are difficult to be adopted. I definitely agree with many of my classmates that the most constrained domain of social innovation is law and politics. I think that since the government and public policy is based on past policies, precedents and tradition like KJ mentioned, it is difficult to get away from these and truly "innovate."
ReplyDeleteIn addition, when there is the potential for change, like with Obama's Healthcare plan, it is met with a lot of resistance. Society and our beliefs and norms tend to be the biggest barrier to innovation as we are reluctant to adopt new ideas, concepts, strategies and innovations even though they may be for the better.
I'm not sure what it will take for us to move past this, but I think that over time with our acceptance of small, incremental changes changes, we will be more receptive to larger changes as a whole. Or at least I hope so!