Work in Progress: a Prototype for Collective Innovation for the Biobased Transition

Kaj Morel, Sebastian Olma and Rikst Westra, Avans University of Applied Sciences (November 2024)

What would you do if you found a way to make high-quality insulation material through fermentation of plant residues? Exactly. You would submit it to a design competition and try to bring your innovation to market. Sounds like a plan! Unfortunately, it usually doesn’t work out that easily or takes a very long time. And your world-improving innovation seems to go to waste… Even if you win an honorable design award, you still might not succeed in getting your invention onto the market and thus into society.

Socially speaking, it is important that innovative, sustainable materials are put into use on a large(er) scale to help realize the transition to a sustainable world. This is the main reason why many designers focus on the (further) development of bio-based materials: products made from re-growable, often plant-based materials as opposed to fossil, non-renewable materials. These designers want to make the world more sustainable and have good ideas on how we could do this. Innovative bio-based product designs regularly win awards. However, the necessary step toward broad societal impact is not taking place. This is frustrating for the designers and detrimental to society.

Can anything be done about this?
To determine if something can be done about this, we previously conducted a study in collaboration with ClickNL entitled “From Award to Impact: Creative Solutions for the Biobased Transition” in which we examined the societal impact of designers of biobased materials and products. We discovered that this impact is much lower than hoped and desired. This is mainly because it turns out that in practice there seems to be only one way for designers of biobased materials to make social impact: commercial success in the market. In other words, if designers do not succeed in selling their biobased innovations through the market, they will have no impact. And it is exactly this, the commercial marketing of the innovation in daily practice, seems to be problematic.

There appears to be a clash of interests on several fronts. When a designer-entrepreneur reaches out to an existing manufacturer to rent a machine or production space, the manufacturer themselves will not benefit from this. Existing manufacturers and governments shy away from disinvestment and capital destruction, and therefore find it difficult to switch to new biobased products. Government often experience new, innovative biobased designs as risky because they are not yet proven in the long term. As a result, they are reluctant to issue permits.

While designers find that making impact through the market often does not work well, it also seems very difficult to stay away from it, to break free from the current (economic) system and to develop alternatives to make impact. This frustrates them because they are convinced that moving to an alternative economic system is necessary. First, because the current system encourages overconsumption. Second, because it offers few earning opportunities for sustainable designers.

To get out of this impasse, we collaborated with these designers in our research to see if there are other, more effective ways for them to make impact. We discovered that developing infrastructures and programs in which everyone is included from the start seems to be a more promising way to make impact for forms of innovation. This also implies a redefinition of roles and ownership. We have defined this form of innovation ‘Collective Innovation’ and we have set up the following working definition for it:

Collective innovation refers to the introduction of new products, processes, organizational forms and ways of working through the active participation of as many stakeholders as possible within a community practice with the goal of achieving a particular improvement for the community and where all proceeds benefit that community.

Does collective innovation offer a solution?
In the follow-up research we are currently engaged in, we are delving into the question of what exactly collective innovation means with the goal of designing an effective practical approach to collective innovation-a prototype-with a focus on the biobased transition.

First, together with our partners – makerspace SPARK Campus in Den Bosch, cultural incubator Electron in Breda, urban development initiative Haus der Materialisierung in Berlin, creative studio Biobased Creations in Amsterdam, and the Dutch Design Foundation in Eindhoven – we explored existing approaches such as open innovation, disruptive innovation, co-creation innovation, social innovation, and consortium innovation. We linked these to alternative economic approaches that emphasize the collective such as governing the commons, economic system innovation, and community wealth building. We also looked at a number of well-documented practical examples that provide inspiration for collective innovation such as some Dutch incubators and sanctuaries but also international cases such as L’ Asilo in Naples and Can Batllo in Barcelona.

Based on this input, we developed a concept prototype that we will explain later. We are further developing this prototype in two ways. First, we will test this in working sessions with our partners and their networks, the so-called PIPA workshops. In addition, we will discuss the prototype with innovation experts from science and research. Based on the reactions and insights from the PIPA workshops and expert discussions, this will result in an improved prototype at the end of this study whose substantive adequacy as well as practical applicability have been tested on a small scale.

From PIPA to IIPA workshops
PIPA is a particular key methodology that stands for Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis, a structured practical approach to action research on change processes in which all stakeholders in an issue jointly develop a theory of change and impact pathways (ways to achieve that change) . While a classic PIPA is primarily about developing a commercial service or product, we take a more-than-market approach. That is, in designing our specific workshops, we have assumed that the development of innovations with a positive impact for the public good is best designed as inclusive social processes. Hence, we need to look beyond potential producers and consumers of product or service innovations. We therefore call these workshops not PIPA but IIPA: Inclusive Impact Pathways Analysis. IIPA workshops involve a broad spectrum of social parties: initiators and potentially involved citizens as much as policy makers, commercial parties, scientists, artists, activists and (citizen) experts.

For many of those involved, time and money are limited. The participants involved often cannot afford to participate unpaid in a multi-day workshop as in a PIPA . Therefore, in our IIPA workshops, we employ a “pressure cooker” variant that focuses primarily on the development of the prototype as a synthesis of change theory and as a impact pathways as well and we offer participants a participation fee.

The Prototype

The structure of the IIPA is largely determined by the Collective Innovation model, which is developed specifically for this purpose. Because this model is still in development, we talk about a prototype. The intended innovation is at the center of the prototype. Around the intended innovation are four pillars: these are the measures for collective innovation that can be used to determine the extent to which collective innovation is actually taking place. Slightly simplified, this involves the following questions (represented within the four pillars of Collective Innovation):

1. What innovation is being pursued?
2. By which community/relationships is the innovation supported?
3. What is the decision-making process within the innovation process?
4. Who funds the innovation and how are the proceeds distributed?

Each pillar is developed into a several sub-questions, a tip and a check to focus and facilitate the conversation about it.

Use of the prototype is straightforward. The intended innovation is entered in the middle circle, for example, “roof tiles made of flax.” By addressing the different pillars step by step and answering and discussing the questions, checks and tips, insights are provided to what extend the envisaged innovation can actually be classified as a collective innovation. Also, insight is gained into what is needed to make the envisaged innovation a collective innovation (thereby increasing the chances of successful introduction into society).

Initial Findings
The first two IIPA workshops have highlighted a number of issues:

1. The prototype works well for having a structured conversation about the case of collective innovation that is the focus of IIPA;
2. Providing a clear description of the collective innovation envisioned does not prove easy in practice. This is partly due to the complex nature of more-than-market innovations of which Spark Innovation Campus and Haus der Materialisierung are examples;
3. While it is possible to address all parts of the model in the time available for the workshop, time is still limited and sometimes there is a need for a more in-depth discussion of certain parts of the prototype;
4. Despite this (points 2 and 3), participants indicated that they felt the workshop was valuable, that the prototype was useful and provided new insights, and that it would be recommended that it be further developed into an even more accessible and easier to use “toolkit.”
5. While participants indicate that they learn a lot from the IIPA workshops and the use of the prototype, they also have useful suggestions for adjustments and improvements.

Up next
The research project is now about halfway, this is what we have planned for the upcoming period:
– The IIPA workshops at Biobased Creations;
– Testing the prototype in collaboration with innovation experts and Building Balance;
– Writing the final report;
– Presentations at the Dutch Design Week 2025 and presenting findings for politics, science and civil society in Berlin.

Our impact
We are convinced that there is a role for the creative sector when it comes to developing innovations for a more bio-based, circular and sustainable economy. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that a commercial, market-oriented approach alone is not effective enough to achieve a mission-driven economy. Therefore, the goal of this project is to stimulate and accelerate the bio-based transition by finding more inclusive and participatory forms of organizing innovation. The impact of the project can be measured by the extent to which it succeeds in providing a workable prototype for collective innovation. In a follow-up project, we aim to turn this prototype into a toolkit for practical application.

Want to know more, respond or participate? Contact Rikst Westra at ra.westra@avans.nl.