Purpose – The purpose of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of innovative forms of collaboration between different types of enterprises – aimed at scaling social impact – and address the challenges and complexities inherent to these specific types of partnerships. The particular focus is on strategic collaboration between workintegration social enterprises (WISEs) and mainstream, or for-profit enterprises (FPEs) with the shared objective to create more and better employment opportunities for disadvantaged individuals in the labour market. Design/methodology/approach – This study used a qualitative research design. The total sample consisted of 16 small- and medium-sized enterprises (both WISEs and FPEs), which were selected for their proven,business-to-business revenue model and their explicit ambition to create more inclusive jobs for disadvantaged individuals. Data collection and analysis took place between 2021 and 2023 and consisted of: semi-structured interviews with representatives of the participating enterprises to get a better understanding of the way in which current partnerships operate; and co-creative research methods to facilitate change processes – within and outside these partnerships – aimed at creating more social impact. Findings – Most collaborations between WISEs and FPEs start purely transactional, with the exchange of products or services, but once they become more familiarised with each other, the realisation of (joint) social impact becomes more significant. The ambition to further coordinate and integrate operations is prominent, but the partnership process is not without challenges and requires time, commitment and trust. So far, only few collaborations can be considered truly transformational. Originality/value – This study contributes to the discussion on strategic alliances and cross-sector collaborations by providing a conceptual framework and a practical instrument to shape strategic collaboration between social enterprises and FPEs that aim to create more social impact.
LINK
Summary Project objectives This study fits into a larger research project on logistics collaboration and outsourcing decisions. The final objective of this larger project is to analyze the logistics collaboration decision in more detail to identify thresholds in these decisions. To reach the overall objectives, the first step is to get a clearer picture on the chemical and logistics service providers industry, sectors of our study, and on logistics collaboration in these sectors. The results of this first phase are presented in this report. Project Approach The study consists of two parts: literature review and five case studies within the chemical industry. The literature covers three topics: logistics collaboration, logistics outsourcing and purchasing of logistics services. The five case studies are used to refine the theoretical findings of the literature review. Conclusions Main observations during the case studies can be summarized as follows: Most analyzed collaborative relationships between shippers and logistics service providers in the chemical industry are still focused on operational execution of logistics activities with a short term horizon. Supply management design and control are often retained by the shippers. Despite the time and cost intensive character of a logistics service buying process, shippers tendering on a very regular basis. The decision to start a new tender project should more often be based on an integral approach that includes all tender related costs. A lower frequency of tendering could create more stability in supply chains. Beside, it will give both, shippers and LSPs, the possibility to improve the quality of the remaining projects. Price is still a dominating decision criterion in selecting a LSP. This is not an issue as long as the comparison of costs is based on an integral approach, and when shippers balance the cost criterion within their total set of criteria for sourcing logistics services. At the shippers' side there is an increased awareness of the need of more solid collaboration with logistics service providers. Nevertheless, in many cases this increased awareness does not actually result in the required actions to establish more intensive collaboration. Over the last years the logistics service providers industry was characterized by low profit margins, strong fragmentation and price competition. Nowadays, the market for LSPs is changing, because of an increasing demand for logistics services. To benefit from this situation a more pro-active role of the service providers is required in building stronger relationships with their customers. They should pay more attention on mid and long term possibilities in a collaborative relation, in stead of only be focused on running the daily operation.
DOCUMENT
Developing a framework that integrates Advanced Language Models into the qualitative research process.Qualitative research, vital for understanding complex phenomena, is often limited by labour-intensive data collection, transcription, and analysis processes. This hinders scalability, accessibility, and efficiency in both academic and industry contexts. As a result, insights are often delayed or incomplete, impacting decision-making, policy development, and innovation. The lack of tools to enhance accuracy and reduce human error exacerbates these challenges, particularly for projects requiring large datasets or quick iterations. Addressing these inefficiencies through AI-driven solutions like AIDA can empower researchers, enhance outcomes, and make qualitative research more inclusive, impactful, and efficient.The AIDA project enhances qualitative research by integrating AI technologies to streamline transcription, coding, and analysis processes. This innovation enables researchers to analyse larger datasets with greater efficiency and accuracy, providing faster and more comprehensive insights. By reducing manual effort and human error, AIDA empowers organisations to make informed decisions and implement evidence-based policies more effectively. Its scalability supports diverse societal and industry applications, from healthcare to market research, fostering innovation and addressing complex challenges. Ultimately, AIDA contributes to improving research quality, accessibility, and societal relevance, driving advancements across multiple sectors.
Hoogwaardig afvalhout van bewoners, bouwbedrijven en meubelmakers blijft momenteel ongebruikt omdat het te arbeidsintensief is om grote hoeveelheden ongelijke stukken hout van verschillende afmetingen en soorten te verwerken. Waardevol hout wordt waardeloos afval, tegen de principes van de circulaire economie in. In CW.Code werken Powerhouse Company, Bureau HUNC en Vrijpaleis samen met de HvA om te onderzoeken hoe een toegankelijke ontwerptool te ontwikkelen om upcycling en waardecreatie van afvalhout te faciliteren. In andere projecten hebben HvA en partners verschillende objecten gemaakt van afvalhout: een stoel, een receptiebalie, kleine meubels en objecten voor de openbare ruimte, vervaardigd met industriële robots. Deze objecten zijn 3D gemodelleerd met behulp van specifieke algoritmen, in de algemeen gebruikte ontwerpsoftware Rhino en Grasshopper. De projectpartners willen nu onderzoeken hoe deze algoritmen via een toegankelijke tool bruikbaar te maken voor creatieve praktijken. Deze tool integreert generatieve ontwerpalgoritmen en regelsets die rekening houden met beschikbaar afvalhout, en de ecologische, financiële en sociale impact van resulterende ontwerpen evalueren. De belangrijkste ontwerpparameters kunnen worden gemanipuleerd door ontwerpers en/of eindgebruikers, waardoor het een waardevol hulpmiddel wordt voor het co-creëren van circulaire toepassingen voor afvalhout. Dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd door HvA Digital Production Research Group, met bovengenoemde partners. HUNC heeft ervaring met stadsontwikkeling waarbij gebruik wordt gemaakt van lokaal gekapt afvalhout. Vrijpaleis biedt toegang tot een actieve, lokale community van makers met een sterke band met buurtbewoners. Powerhouse Company heeft ervaring in het ontwerpen met hout in de bouw. Alle drie kunnen profiteren van slimmere circulaire ontwerptools, waarbij beschikbaar materiaal, productiebeperkingen en impactevaluatie worden geïntegreerd. De tool wordt ontwikkeld en getest voor twee designcases: een binnenmeubelobject en een buitengevelelement. Bevindingen hiervan zullen leidend zijn bij de ontwikkeling van de tool. Na afronding van het project is een bètaversie gereed voor validatie door ontwerpers, bewonerscollectieven en onderzoek/onderwijs van de HvA.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
