Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.
Author supplied: Within the Netherlands the interest for sustainability is slowly growing. However, most organizations are still lagging behind in implementing sustainability as part of their strategy and in developing performance indicators to track their progress; not only in profit organizations but in higher education as well, even though sustainability has been on the agenda of the higher educational sector since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, progress is slow. Currently most initiatives in higher education in the Netherlands have been made in the greening of IT (e.g. more energy efficient hardware) and in implementing sustainability as a competence in curricula. However if we look at the operations (the day to day processes and activities) of Dutch institutions for higher education we just see minor advances. In order to determine what the best practices are in implementing sustainable processes, We have done research in the Netherlands and based on the results we have developed a framework for the smart campus of tomorrow. The research approach consisted of a literature study, interviews with experts on sustainability (both in higher education and in other sectors), and in an expert workshop. Based on our research we propose the concept of a Smart Green Campus that integrates new models of learning, smart sharing of resources and the use of buildings and transport (in relation to different forms of education and energy efficiency). Flipping‐the‐classroom, blended learning, e‐learning and web lectures are part of the new models of learning that should enable a more time and place independent form of education. With regard to smart sharing of resources we have found best practices on sharing IT‐storage capacity among universities, making educational resources freely available, sharing of information on classroom availability and possibilities of traveling together. A Smart Green Campus is (or at least is trying to be) energy neutral and therefore has an energy building management system that continuously monitors the energy performance of buildings on the campus. And the design of the interior of the buildings is better suited to the new forms of education and learning described above. The integrated concept of Smart Green Campus enables less travel to and from the campus. This is important as in the Netherlands about 60% of the CO2 footprint of a higher educational institute is related to mobility. Furthermore we advise that the campus is in itself an object for study by students and researchers and sustainability should be made an integral part of the attitude of all stakeholders related to the Smart Green Campus. The Smart Green Campus concept provides a blueprint that Dutch institutions in higher education can use in developing their own sustainability strategy. Best practices are shared and can be implemented across different institutions thereby realizing not only a more sustainable environment but also changing the attitude that students (the professionals of tomorrow) and staff have towards sustainability.
Abstract: With the adoption of values, principles, practices, tools and processes from Agile, Lean, and DevOps, knowledge preservation has become a serious issue because documentation is largely left out. We identify two questions that are relevant for knowledge acquisition and distribution concerning design decisions, rationales, or reasons for code change. The first concerns which knowledge is required upfront to start a project. The second question concerns continuation after initial development and addresses which knowledge is required by those who deploy, use or maintain a software product. We evaluate two relevant approaches for alleviating the issues, which are ‘Just enough Upfront’ and ‘Executable Documentation’ with a total of 25 related artifacts. For the evaluation, we conducted a case study supported by a literature review, organizational and project metrics, and a survey. We looked into closed source-code and closed classified source-code. We found two conclusive remarks. First, g it commit messages typically contain what has been changed but not why source-code has been changed. Design decisions, rationale, or reasons for code change should be saved as close as possible to the source-code with Git Pull Requests. Second, knowledge about a software product is not only written down in artifacts but is also a social construction between team members.
In the past decades, we have faced an increase in the digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation of our work and daily life. Breakthroughs of digital technologies in fields such as artificial intelligence, telecommunications, and data science bring solutions for large societal questions but also pose a new challenge: how to equip our (future)workforce with the necessary digital skills, knowledge, and mindset to respond to and drive digital transformation?Developing and supporting our human capital is paramount and failure to do so may leave us behind on individual (digital divide), organizational (economic disadvantages), and societal level (failure in addressing grand societal challenges). Digital transformation necessitates continuous learning approaches and scaffolding of interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation practices that match complex real-world problems. Research and industry have advocated for setting up learning communities as a space in which (future) professionals of different backgrounds can work, learn, and innovate together. However, insights into how and under which circumstances learning communities contribute to accelerated learning and innovation for digital transformation are lacking. In this project, we will study 13 existing and developing learning communities that work on challenges related to digital transformation to understand their working mechanisms. We will develop a wide variety of methods and tools to support learning communities and integrate these in a Learning Communities Incubator. These insights, methods and tools will result in more effective learning communities that will eventually (a) increase the potential of human capital to innovate and (b) accelerate the innovation for digital transformation
The Dutch main water systems face pressing environmental, economic and societal challenges due to climatic changes and increased human pressure. There is a growing awareness that nature-based solutions (NBS) provide cost-effective solutions that simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help building resilience. In spite of being carefully designed and tested, many projects tend to fail along the way or never get implemented in the first place, wasting resources and undermining trust and confidence of practitioners in NBS. Why do so many projects lose momentum even after a proof of concept is delivered? Usually, failure can be attributed to a combination of eroding political will, societal opposition and economic uncertainties. While ecological and geological processes are often well understood, there is almost no understanding around societal and economic processes related to NBS. Therefore, there is an urgent need to carefully evaluate the societal, economic, and ecological impacts and to identify design principles fostering societal support and economic viability of NBS. We address these critical knowledge gaps in this research proposal, using the largest river restoration project of the Netherlands, the Border Meuse (Grensmaas), as a Living Lab. With a transdisciplinary consortium, stakeholders have a key role a recipient and provider of information, where the broader public is involved through citizen science. Our research is scientifically innovative by using mixed methods, combining novel qualitative methods (e.g. continuous participatory narrative inquiry) and quantitative methods (e.g. economic choice experiments to elicit tradeoffs and risk preferences, agent-based modeling). The ultimate aim is to create an integral learning environment (workbench) as a decision support tool for NBS. The workbench gathers data, prepares and verifies data sets, to help stakeholders (companies, government agencies, NGOs) to quantify impacts and visualize tradeoffs of decisions regarding NBS.
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.
