The Future of Social Innovation and Neurologically-Based Measurement Tools

As we conclude our last week’s curriculum we will discuss “The Future of Social Innovation and Enterprise.” I would like to engage in a discussion related to this week’s theme by guiding my assessments and predictions of the future of social innovation through a focused discussion on measuring a country’s social progress. Ariel Schwartz, writes an article titled, “Forget GDP: The Social Progress Index Measures National Well-Being,” which presents a challenge to GDP as a sufficient measuring tool to evaluate a country’s well-being and social progress. Schwartz suggests a new, innovative measurement tool called the Social Progress Index to supplement, or replace, GDP measurement tools.

Overall, the Social Progress Index measures a country’s social and environmental outcomes directly, and measures each outcome’s subcomponents, and specific outcomes of those subcomponents. For example, “health and wellness” is considered a subcomponent of an environmental outcome, and a specific outcome of “health and wellness,” is measured by “life expectancy, obesity, cancer death rate, or other factors.” A country’s composite score that takes into account the main outcomes of society and the environment, and provides a comprehensive assessment of the country’s overall well-being and social progress.

I am intrigued by supplementing GDP with the Social Progress Index; research supports the notion that GDP is limited in its ability to fully quantify and evaluate the idiosyncrasies in the outcomes of society (e.g., societal or environmental). I look forward to continued innovation in the creation of measurement tools that more comprehensively and deeply evaluate factors in a country that impact the country’s growth, well-being, development, and overall progress.

As someone with a background in psychology and neuroscience, I look forward to measurement tools that capture societal progress and impact by additionally including individuals’ cognitive and neurological development. GDP and Social Progress Indexes are rudimentary measurement tools that fall short of providing the deepest and most comprehensive measurement of human development and progress in comparison to a tool that also evaluates an individual’s cognitive and neurological development.

Both cognitive and neurological developments are at the core of what defines humanity and its developmental progress. In other words, economic growth, growth in basic needs, opportunity growth, physiological well being, and others, are indicative of the overall progress or well being of a country and its residents because these measured outcomes indicate a more efficient framework that facilities a greater capacity for any particular individual to develop cognitively and neurologically.

In a more ideal society in which GDP is “through the roof,” any particular individual is economically satisfied, physiologically healthy, has all basic needs satisfied, has access to every opportunity, will this individual seize to develop and progress? Of course not. In this case, the previously mentioned outcomes lay a framework for this individual to continue developing; where all that is left to develop is the individual’s cognitive and neurological capacities; thus the penultimate stages of human development. I’d say measuring these outcomes would be the future of social innovation.

What do you think?

Source: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681830/forget-gdp-the-social-progress-index-measures-national-well-being

Social Innovation or Good idea?

In the article,  “African Entrepreneurs Deflate Google’s Internet Boom Idea,” it showed how great ideas are not enough in social innovations. Social innovations rely on a combination of several interlocking parts to make the overall social innovation. Google came up with an awesome idea that was created in a lab halfway around that they thought would make a major difference in the everyday lives of people on Africa. The article said, “that from what we’ve seen, there are huge swaths of people who don’t have connectivity.” If you look at data, it shows that there is a large number of people on the continent without Internet connection. The simple solution would be to give them Internet. So that is what Google did, it came up with an awesome idea to make Internet more accessible.

Google created a solar powered balloon that would deliver Internet to people who do not have it. It sounds wonderful almost revolutionary, but was the process well thought out? This was the question that was explored in grave detail in the article. It really showed how Google’s great idea had limited capacity in some or most of the communities. In order to log on to the Internet, you need a device that would allow you to access to the Internet. Google’s idea is a little before its time. It is basically an airplane before the Wright Brothers.This is why the concepts we have been discussing in class are so important. Many of the problems with their model could have been identified if they would have focused on a more human centered design aspect. 

The objective of social innovation is to maximize social impact and in order to do that, one must understand people’s problem. A problem in the US may not be a problem in a country like Kenya. This is why human centered design is one of the focal points throughout the course because tailored made solutions maximize social impact. Ideas are formulated all the time, but social innovations make impact. The steps from ideas to being social innovations rely on concepts like human centered designed, government policies and sustainability. Google failed to answer all three of these concepts. What is the Internet balloons value to people without it? Are there any government restrictions on balloons in are and in the airspace? How financially and physically sustainable are the balloons that would be over the continent of Africa? All three of these questions are key to determining if the Internet balloon could be a social innovation. Formulating good ideas is nice, but actually adding value to society is even greater. In conclusion, how do we close the gap between ideas and social innovations? How do we help insure an aid social innovators in making sure they don't follow what google did?