Résumé de la vidéo de [00:00:00][^1^][1] à [00:52:27][^2^][2] :

Cette vidéo présente deux outils pour évaluer le niveau de maturité d'un projet d'innovation sociale : le schéma du cycle de vie et la grille d'évaluation. Ces outils ont été co-construits avec des acteurs de l'écosystème de l'innovation sociale au Québec. Ils permettent de situer un projet dans les différentes phases du processus d'innovation sociale et d'identifier les indicateurs qualitatifs correspondants. La vidéo explique le contexte, les sources d'inspiration, la démarche de co-construction, l'organisation et l'utilisation des deux outils. Elle donne aussi un exemple concret d'application de la grille à un projet.

Points saillants : + [00:00:08][^3^][3] Présentation du webinaire et des intervenants * Marie-Chantal Bach, directrice du RQIS * Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu, animateur du webinaire * David Longtin, chercheur et présentateur des outils * Josée Baudoin, témoin d'un projet d'innovation sociale + [00:03:58][^4^][4] Contexte et objectifs du projet d'outils d'évaluation * Besoin exprimé par les acteurs de l'innovation sociale au Québec * Financement du ministère de l'Économie et de l'Innovation * Portage par imonovis, RQIS, CEDRIC et TIESS * Revue de littérature et groupes de discussion en 2021 * Co-construction de cinq outils avec une trentaine de partenaires en 2022 + [00:06:25][^5^][5] Sources d'inspiration et démarche de co-construction des deux outils présentés * Schéma du RQIS (2014) et revue de littérature (2021) comme points de départ * Deuxième groupe de travail avec six ateliers pour revisiter le schéma et élaborer la grille * Intégration des propositions et des tests des participants + [00:09:25][^6^][6] Organisation et utilisation du schéma du cycle de vie d'une innovation sociale * Quatre grandes phases : émergence, expérimentation, pérennisation ou changement d'échelle, institutionnalisation * Douze niveaux de maturité identifiés par des numéros et des lettres * Possibilité d'allers-retours, de rétroactions, de refocalisation ou de fin du projet * Correspondance avec la grille d'évaluation du niveau de maturité + [00:16:06][^7^][7] Organisation et utilisation de la grille d'évaluation du niveau de maturité d'un projet avec un potentiel d'innovation sociale * Version détaillée avec des indicateurs qualitatifs à vérifier par oui ou non * Version synthétique avec le critère principal de chaque niveau * Prise de notes pour documenter les éléments du projet qui justifient le niveau de maturité * Exemple d'application de la grille à un projet situé à la phase d'émergence + [00:22:22][^8^][8] Témoignage de Josée Baudoin sur l'utilisation de la grille pour son projet de médiation culturelle * Projet qui vise à favoriser l'accès à la culture pour les personnes en situation de vulnérabilité * Utilisation de la grille pour situer le projet à la phase d'expérimentation * Avantages de la grille : clarté, simplicité, adaptabilité, réflexivité * Limites de la grille : subjectivité, complexité, temporalité + [00:26:19][^9^][9] Période de questions et réponses avec les participants * Questions sur la définition de l'innovation sociale, la différence entre les phases, la durée du cycle de vie, etc. * Réponses de David Longtin, Gabriel Salathé-Beaulieu et Marie-Chantal Bach * Renvoi aux autres outils et au prochain webinaire

• for: social superorganism - vs human multicellular being, social superorganism, Homni, major evolutionary transition, MET, MET in Individuality, Indyweb, Indranet, Indyweb/Indranet, CCE cumulative cultural evolution, symmathesy, Gyuri Lajos, individual/collective gestalt, interwingled sensemaking, Deep Humanity, DH, meta crisis, meaning crisis, polycrisis

• comment

  • True, there is no physical cohesion that binds human beings together into a larger organism, but there is another dimension - informational cohesion.
  • This informational cohesion expresses itself in cumulative cultural evolution. Even this very discussion they are having is an example of that
  • The social superorganism is therefore composed of an informational body and not a physical one and one can think of its major mentations as collective, consensual ideas such as popular memes, movements, governmental or business actions and policies
  • I slept on this and this morning, realized how salient Adam's question was to my own work
    • The comments here build and expand upon what I thought yesterday (my original annotations)
    • The main connections to my own sense-making work are:
      • Within our specific human species, the deep entanglement between self and other (the terminology that our Deep Humanity praxis terms the "individual / collective gestalt")
      • The Deep Humanity / SRG claim that the concurrent meaning / meta / poly crisis may be an evolutionary test foreshadowing the next possible Major Evolutionary Transition in Individuality.<br /> - https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true&any=MET+in+Individuality
        • As Adam notes, collective consciousness may be more a metaphorical rather than a literal so a social superorganism, (one reference refers to it as Homni
          • https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140701-the-superorganism-engulfing-earth
        • may be metaphorical only as this higher order individual lacks the physical signaling system to create a biological coherence that, for instance, an animal body possesses.
        • Nevertheless, the informational connections do exist that bind individual humans together and it is not trivial.
        • Indeed, this is exactly what has catapulted our species into modernity where our cumulative cultural evolution (CCE) has defined the concurrent successes and failures of our species. Modernity's meaning / meta / polycrisis and progress traps are a direct result of CCE.
        • Humanity's intentions and its consequences, both intended and unintended are what has come to shape the entire trajectory of the biosphere. So the impacts of human CCE are not trivial at all. Indeed, a paper has been written proposing that human information systems could be the next Major System Transition (MST) that could lead to another future MET that melds biotic and abiotic
          • https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?max=100&expanded=true&user=stopresetgo&exactTagSearch=true&any=MST+-+information
          • or https://hyp.is/go?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontiersin.org%2Farticles%2F10.3389%2Ffevo.2021.711556&group=world
        • This circles back to Adam's question and what has just emerged for me is this question:
          • Is it possible that we could evolve in some kind of hybrid direction where we are biologically still separate individuals BUT deeply intertwingled informationally through CCE and something like the theoretical Indyweb/Indranet which is an explicit articulation of our theoretical informational connectivity?
          • In other words, could "collective consciousness be explicitly defined in terms of an explicit, externalized information system reflecting intertwingled individual/collective learning?
      • The Indyweb / Indranet informational laminin protein / connective tissue that informationally binds individuals to others in an explicit, externalized means of connecting the individual informational nodes of the social superorganism, giving it "collective consciousness" (whereas prior to Indyweb / Indranet, this informational laminin/connective tissue was not systematically developed so all informational connection, for example of the existing internet, is incomplete and adhoc)
      • The major trajectory paths that global or localized cultural populations take can become an indication of the behavior of collective consciousness.
        • Voting, both formal and informal is an expression of consensus leading to consensual behavior and the consensual behavior could be a reflection of Homni's collective consciousness

• insight

  • While socially annotating this video, a few insights occurred after last night's sleep:
    • Hypothes.is lacks timebound sequence granularity. Indyweb / Indranet has this feature built in and we need it for social annotation. Why? All the information within this particular annotation cannot be machine sorted into a time series. As the social annotator, I actually have to point out which information came first, second, etc. This entire comment, for instance was written AFTER the original very short annotation. Extra tags were updated to reflect the large comment.
    • I gained a new realization of the relationship and intertwingularity of individual / collective learning while writing and reflecting on this social annotation. I think it's because of Adam's question that really revolves around MET of Individuality and the 3 conversant's questioning of the fluid and fuzzy boundary between "self" and "other"
      • Namely, within Indyweb / Indranet there are two learning pillars that make up the entirety of external sensemaking:
        • the first is social annotation of the work of others
        • the second is our own synthesis of what we learned from others (ie. our social annotations)
      • It is the integration of these two pillars that is the sum of our sensemaking parts. Social annotations allow us to sample the edge of the sensemaking work of others. After all, when we ingest one specific information source of others, it is only one of possibly many. Social annotations reflect how our whole interacts with their part. However, we may then integrate that peripheral information of the other more deeply into our own sensemaking work, and that's where we must have our own central synthesizing Indyweb / Indranet space to do that work.
      • It is this interplay between different poles that constitute CCE and symmathesy, mutual learning.
      • adjacency between
        • Indyweb / Indranet name space
        • Indranet
        • automatic vs manual references / citations
      • adjacency statement
        • Oh man, it's so painful to have to insert all these references and citations when Indranet is designed to do all this! A valuable new meme just emerged to express this:
          • Pain between the existing present situation and the imagined future of the same si the fuel that drives innovation.

• quote: Gien

  • Pain between an existing present situation and an imagined, improved future is the fuel that drives innovation.
• date: 2023, Nov 8

• annotate

• for: quote, quote - Artur Serra, quote - labs, quote - innovation, quote - internet labs
• quote
  • Four billion people are now connected to the same infrastructure, the internet, that we the science and technology community put in place just decades ago.
  • This is creating the conditions for an explosion of open creativity and innovation never seen before.
  • A huge wave of labs of all kinds,
    • living labs,
    • fablabs,
    • social labs,
    • edulabs,
    • innovation spaces and
    • policy labs
    • citizen labs
  • is emerging as the new kind of groups and communities of the digital era.
  • We are moving from the net to the lab.
  • On the 2030 horizon, many of these labs will gather and agree in generating the first universal innovation ecosystems in regions and countries.
  • https://www.ecsite.eu/activities-and-services/news-and-publications/digital-spokes/issue-45
• author: Artur Serra
  • deputy director of I2CQT Foundation
  • research director, Citilab, Catalonia, Spain

It’s too soon to declare vaccine victory—Four strategies for continued progress | TheHill. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2021, from https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/552219-its-too-soon-to-declare-covid-vaccine-victory-four-strategies-for

Karimi, Fariba, and Petter Holme. ‘A Temporal Network Version of Watts’s Cascade Model’. ArXiv:2103.13604 [Physics], 25 March 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.13604.

Yes, they've done some of these things, but I'd argue they didn't do much of the actual innovation. Most of what they had done was being done in other areas of the web before them and they just paved the cow paths.

Potentially worse, their only innovation was to silo all the value for themselves and then externalize all the costs and issues back into society so they don't have to pay for them themselves.

Kharal, L. (2020, May 16). “FORMATIVE RESEARCH” FOR SYSTEMATIC BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROGRAM DESIGN. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bpqfw

5 Innovations in Behavioural Design for Physical Distancing. (2020 May 06) https://www.behaviouralbydesign.co.nz/post/5-innovations-in-behavioural-design-for-physical-distancing

It's rarely ever about the "lone genius".

Haley, C., Orlik, J., Czibor, E., Cuello, H., Firpo, T., Goettsch, M., Stouffs, L., Smith, L. (2020 April 09). There will be no 'back to normal'. Nesta. nesta.org.uk/blog/there-will-be-no-back-normal/

Kleinman, M. (2020 April 16). Innovation agency Nesta backs UK edtech start-up BibliU. Sky News. https://news.sky.com/story/innovation-agency-nesta-backs-uk-edtech-start-up-bibliu-11974089

Sense Collective's Climate Tagger API and Pool Party Semantic Web plug-in are perfectly suited to support The Wilson Center's metadata schema project. Creating a common metadata schema that is used across multiple organizations working within the same domain, with similar (and overlapping) data and data types, is an essential step towards realizing collective intelligence. There is significant redundancy that consumes limited resources as organizations often perform the same type of data structuring. Interoperability issues between organizations, their metadata semantics and serialization methods, prevent cumulative progress as a community. Sense Collective's MetaGrant program is working to provide a shared infastructure for NGO's and social impact investment funds and social impact bond programs to help rapidly improve the problems that are being solved by this awesome project of The Wilson Center. Now let's extend the coordinated metadata semantics to 1000 more organizations and incentivize the citizen science volunteers who make this possible, with a closer connection to the local benefits they produce through their efforts. With integration into Social impact Bond programs and public/private partnerships, we are able to incentivize collective action in ways that match the scope and scale of the problems we face.

This was an excellent article Chen (2007) in defining and laying out how a blended learning approach of objectivist and constructivist instructional strategies work well in online instruction and the use of an actual online course as a study example.

RATING: 4/5 (rating based upon a score system 1 to 5, 1= lowest 5=highest in terms of content, veracity, easiness of use etc.)

Sounds like a very quick summary of what Ben Thompson was saying two weeks ago. But, in this case, it’s from “the horse’s mouth”.

The quotes are important. There are different approaches to innovation. The one described here may be pushed by politicians and administrators, but some would argue that it’s not innovation in the same sense as what either Eric Von Hippel or Michael Schragge might describe.

According to scholars like MIT’s Eric Von Hippel and Michael Schrage, innovation is about usage. Otherwise, it’s just novelty. But the innovation discourse often repurposes the term to be about R&D.

There are contexts in which these things matter more. Maybe worthwhile to start from there. Not focusing on business models or “does it scale”. But on a plethora of initiatives and pilot projects.

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-twitter-users-can-generate-better-ideas

Wait… Michael Schrage and Eric von Hippel must know each other, right?

Unlike some other approaches to development, this acknowledgment that usage can push innovation could help expand Hypothesis beyond a core base of “annotation geeks”. Document-level annotations can serve to classify or evaluate, like social bookmarking. What’s wrong with that?