The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
IJPPM
65,2
256
Received 4 October 2015
Revised 4 October 2015
Accepted 5 October 2015
International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management
Vol. 65 No. 2, 2016
pp. 256-274
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-10-2015-0147
Social innovation model
for business performance
and innovation
Beena Salim Saji
HCT, Abu Dhabi Men’s College, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and
Paul Ellingstad
Human Progress Initiatives, Hewlett Packard, Clarecastle, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a social innovation model and understand the levels
of communication of different social actors at different points of a social innovation project (at Hewlett
Packard). The paper also looks into the effect of communication networks and power of words in social
interaction in social innovation projects.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper defines social innovation in the first part and how it
differs from social entrepreneurship, corporate social responsibility and social business. The research
focusses on the data available through the internet and the papers and articles related to social
innovation experience of technology companies. A content analysis of the terminology that is used for
social innovation projects during innovation process and the articles published will be the primary
source for data analysis in the study.
Findings – The study did illuminate the power of certain words that are repeatedly used in e-mails
and articles, related to the social innovation which can give researchers an idea about the power of
words in social innovation.
Research limitations/implications – It is important for human resource managers
and innovation leaders to look at innovation from the social motivational process and more
strategic perspective rather than just from the science and technology perspective. The study
concludes with the development of a model and partnership communication analysis for successful
social innovation projects.
Originality/value – The research will add value to the area of social innovation by looking into the
importance of concepts and words used in social innovation. The study is looking into a new
perspective of social marketing which is the power of words in a social innovation project.
Keywords Marketing, Communication, Innovation, Collaboration, Business performance,
Social networks
Paper type Case study
Introduction
The objective of the study is to develop a social innovation model and understand the
levels of communication of different social actors at different points of a social
innovation project (conducted in Hewlett Packard (HP)).
The importance of partnerships and communication is emphasized in the motivation
of employees in an organization toward innovation. With the advent of social media
and social networks which were created by the advancement in technology, there is
often more communication through this media than face-to-face. The study proposes a
model of social innovation using existing articles and research in social innovation.
Drucker (1986) was the first person who proposed social innovation during the
modern management era. He argued that management was the dominant power in
the previous 40-50 years in economies, but the new power which would become
dominant in another 20-30 years is concerned with solving social problems. Drucker Social
(2002) and Mulgan et al. (2006) thus argued that more important innovations would innovation
emerge in the social sectors rather than in business.
In her article in the Harvard Business Review: “From spare changes to real change:
model
The social sector as Beta site for innovation” Kanter (1999) states that business needs to
move away from charity and philanthropy and move into solving social problems
using their business competencies and resources, and address problems through 257
partnerships with government, or communities or private organizations. She further
gives examples of the Marriot training program, Bell Atlantic Inc., the First Community
Bank of the Bank of Boston, and United Airlines and their community-related
partnership programs that lead to innovation. Kanter (1999) asserts the importance of
having a strong business model while engaging with partnerships with other
organizations to solve community problems and social issues. There have been
attempts to identify antecedents and effects of social innovation. The study done by
Grimes, et al. (2013) focussed on compassion as an antecedent to become, or motivation
to be, a social entrepreneur.

Literature review
Social innovation
Development usually encompasses three dimensions – economic growth, social growth
and human improvement. Thus scientific knowledge is divided into natural, social and
humanistic dimensions. Hence innovation needs to happen not only in the natural
dimension area – it needs to happen in the social and humanistic areas too. Innovation
in the social dimension is usually connected to social innovation, and social
entrepreneurship. Science and technology laboratories need to have a collaborative
domain for interaction between these three dimensions to develop an innovation which
is useful to mankind and the universe. Helmer et al. (1966) said that innovation does not
happen just in the science and technology domain alone, but there is something called
social technology innovation. Later, Lowe et al. (2008) highlighted the importance of
social technology and the multi-faceted contribution of social science to agriculture and
food system research. Menon (2001) also stressed the idea that innovation thus happens
not in the area of natural sciences alone, but in all areas of human activities and thereby
emphasized the importance of social science in innovation.
In 1934, Schumpeter (1934) first defined innovation as the introduction of a new
good. This is not just in business but also in the social context; innovation
entrepreneurship based on social science and technology (S&T) also belongs to
innovational practice, no doubt. Lundstrom and Zhou (2011) argue that innovation
based on social S&T could play a critical role in manufacturing innovation in China,
and this missing part in innovation studies will be found worldwide in the coming
years. So far, no indicator can measure the influence of a 5,000-year-old Chinese culture.
It is interesting to see how Andrew et al. (2009) formed a very realistic deduction from
the input innovation to the performance output of different countries to demonstrate
that although the input for innovation in China is far less than many other top-ranked
countries like USA and Singapore, the output of China is large due to its manufacturing
capabilities. Thus the ratio of performance output to innovation input for China gives a
very large ratio which makes China stand out as first among all the other countries in
this performance to innovation index. Lundstrom and Zhou (2011)’s argument is
equally interesting whereby they claim that China may have much social innovation
which is discounted by the data. The data only counts science and technology
IJPPM innovation which is more quantifiable with such as patent numbers in the science and
65,2 technology field. The manufacturing capabilities of China might have helped large
Western companies who have outsourced their work to China, in developing products
using innovative processes which are not recognized and explained anywhere.
According to Elkington (2013), the well-known sustainability practitioner and
author, there is a gradual mainstreaming of social innovation into the wider economy
258 either through innovative partnerships between major companies and top social
entrepreneurs or by the evolution of social intrapreneurship within companies
themselves. In their well-known article – “Creating shared value” Porter and Kramer
(2011) stress the importance of innovation which is socially oriented where business
should create a shared value with the social stakeholders. Each firm, when they start
looking at decisions and opportunities through the lens of shared value, will lead to new
approaches that will generate greater innovation and growth for the companies and
thereby larger social benefits. They should reconceive their products and markets;
redefine productivity and their value chain; and enable local cluster development.
The authors thus argue that may be social innovation history is what makes China
so dynamic and helped it to surpas the growth of USA in recent years. But this is not
taken into account in any data or statistical evaluations as social innovation
measurement is more qualitative. One assumption which can be based on this is social
innovation thus needs more collaborative efforts from science and technology as well
as from social and humanistic domains from all three sectors which are government,
private organizations and non-profit organizational innovation capabilities and ideas.
The science and technology of these big outsourcing companies like Apple, Siemens,
Dell and other similar companies may have created an environment of
entrepreneurship or ancillary industries or processes to satisfy some social needs of
China which are not recorded yet. This is what Porter and Kramer (2011) term as local
cluster formation for the greater social good that happens as part of the shared value
that business creates for the society in their seminal article.
We can define social innovation as concepts, ideas and organizations that meet
social needs of all kinds from working conditions and education to community
development and health; and extend and strengthen the civil society. Social innovation
can usually take place within governments, large organizations or within the non-profit
sector. But usually social innovation happens in a space between these three sectors
which is supported by open innovation. This can at times be related to social
entrepreneurship but it need not always comprise innovation, but may lead to
innovation (Baumol, 2002; Aldrich, 1999). Companies, government and the non-profit
sector should openly share ideas and technologies which can be used by the others, so
that social problems can be solved using social innovation where required. Chesbrough
(2006) argues that in this way companies can use external ideas and technological ideas
in their own business as well as letting others use their unused ideas. Social innovation
thus is the process of explicitly applying innovation to social and environmental
improvements through business actions.
A recent investigation by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
found that sustainability-based innovation is on the rise and firms have realized the
importance of the same for growing markets and realized the value of partnership-based
initiatives (Little, 2006). Kanter (1999) illustrates that partnership between business and
society that is just based on donations and philanthropic charity does not interest
business anymore as they want to get involved in the process. Partnerships are thus
pragmatic when they involve the core business or program activities of both partners
(Waddell, 2000 and Ashman, 2001). Innovation is difficult and protracted in practice Social
because there is a departure from standard procedure that is often costly in terms of innovation
resources and the commitment to bring about changes in routine relationship dynamics
(Birkinshaw et al., 2008).
model

Social entrepreneurship
This uses market-based methods to solve social problems. This can happen through an 259
entrepreneur’s individual action to solve a social problem and at the same time
commercialize the same and make profits. Social entrepreneurship needs thus to create
social value and economic value (Austin et al., 2006; Dees, 1998). It is important for
social entrepreneurs to sustain this social value (Peredo and McLean, 2006; Shaw and
Carter, 2007) that they create through the business and hence use organizational
methods to ensure that it is sustainable. This is possible through market-based
organizational policies and practices (Hartigan, 2006; Lasprogata and Cotten, 2003;
Mair and Marti, 2006; Thompson, 2002).
Mair and Marti (2006) view social entrepreneurship as a process of creating value by
combining resources in new ways. Further, these resource combinations are intended
primarily to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value by stimulating
social change or meeting social needs. When viewed as a process, social
entrepreneurship involves the offering of services and products but can also refer to
the creation of new organizations.
Dees (1998) describes social entrepreneurs in terms of five behavior-related
characteristics: they serve as social-sector change agents by: adopting a mission to
create/sustain social value; recognizing and pursuing opportunities consistent with
that mission; engaging in continuous innovation and learning; acting boldly despite
potential resource limitations; and exhibiting accountability to those being served and
for outcomes that are created.
As Roberts and Woods (2005) assert, social entrepreneurs do not come to the
endeavor as business entrepreneurs. Social entrepreneurs focus more on the social
needs that they can solve through an initiative which may yield a commercial benefit.
But commercial benefit is not their primary objective in most of the instances. There is
an inner moral passion, or need, that surfaces; and the entrepreneur seizes an
opportunity through an attitude to solve that social problem in an organized managed
manner that businesses use. When social entrepreneurship is done as an individual act
we can call it social entrepreneurship and thereby create a social value along with a
commercial value to the community or people affected. When this same process is done
as part of bigger organization we call it social innovation.

Social business
A third concept that is related to social innovation, social entrepreneurship and
corporate social responsibility (CSR) is social business. According to Muhammed
Yunus, the Nobel Laureate and founder of the Grameen Bank, social business is
different from social entrepreneurship. There is no concept of profit going back to
the investors in social business. For example, if someone starts a business to solve a
social issue after taking money from some source, he will pay back only the money
that is invested; the remainder of the profit will be kept for future improvement
of the existing social issue that is addressed or any related ones that can be solved.
In his interview, reported in the article by Kickul et al. (2012), Yunus, clearly makes
IJPPM that difference between a social entrepreneurship and a social business. Yunus
65,2 defines a social business as being based on the following seven principles (World
Economic Forum in Davos, January 2009): first, the objective of the business is to
overcome poverty, or one or more intractable problems of society (such as education,
health, technology access and environment); it is not profit maximization; second,
it must be financially and economically sustainable; third, investors receive a return
260 on investment that does not exceed the amount of their investment, that is, no
dividend is given; fourth, when funds are repaid by the borrower, any and all the
company profit (i.e. loan interest) is retained by the company for additional
expansion and improvement; fifth, the business must be environmentally conscious;
sixth, the workforce should get market wages with better working conditions;
seventh, “Do it with joy.”
Yunus clearly argues that social business is not for profit because the basic goal is to
solve a social issue and raise human beings from adversity and poverty and raise the
standard of living. He reminds university professors that education in business should
teach business students that their final goal is to enrich the lives of human beings and
business does not stand for profits alone. The ethics underlying this statement is quite
strong. But at the same time we need operational staff who are educated in critical skills
related to business to manage a social business and the only differentiator is having an
objective to correct a social problem as passion in their minds and hearts.

CSR
Many organizations today see social innovation as a part of CSR. There are
organizations like Global Reporting Initiative and Global Compact which measure the
impact of an organization’s CSR activities. Businesses have realized the social value
and reputational index they can build by engaging themselves and their employees in
CSR activities. The last decade has seen a rush of organizations to more engagement
in CSR moving from charity and philanthropy to actual engagement with community
and other wider social issues. Customers, employees, shareholders, environment and
community are the pillars on which CSR reports are made.
While responsive CSR is being a good corporate citizen creating good will for the
company by addressing every social harm the business creates, strategic CSR is far
more selective. Companies are called on to address hundreds of social issues, but they
have to carefully select opportunities that make a real difference to the society through
utilizing their competitive advantage. Organizations that select and build focussed,
proactive and integrated social initiatives in concert with their core strategies will
increasingly create greater social impact in the future (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Many
of the social innovations of larger companies are now an extension of their CSR index
value. Companies like General Electric and HP have made immense contributions
through social innovations in the field of education, healthcare and climate change.
These social innovations along with cooperation, alliances and engagement with
government, local community NGOs and academia, as well as private entrepreneurs;
have resulted in exchanges of ideas that have led to social innovations.
Social innovation model. A social innovation model needs to take into account all
the attributes required for the creation of compassion and passion in the mind of the
innovator or innovation team. Drawing from the study of compassion and how it can
contribute to collective capabilities (Kanov et al., 2004) the importance of passion and
compassion is underlined. By considering how compassion might serve to motivate a
broader range of activities and responses, including the founding of a new organization
intended to address social issues and alleviate others’ suffering, we extend prior studies Social
that have begun to examine how decision making is influenced by other-orientation innovation
(Grant and Berry, 2011).
The second aspect of social innovation is engagement of partners in a strategic
model
manner to solve the social issue in context. Several studies have been done in relation to
this. De Man and Duysters (2005) highlight the importance of a close knowledge base
between partners for quality interaction. Sivadas and Dwyer (2000) emphasize the 261
importance of the relational facet of the social relationship between the partners which
are trust, communication and coordination which they label as cooperative competency
toward nurturing innovation. Sampson (2007) underscores the importance of structural
elements as in partner diversity and relational elements in fostering incentives for
sharing knowledge. Jamali et al. (2011) in their research say that companies engage in
CSR in two ways – either altruistically or strategically. Then they argue that if the social
alliance ingredients – which are relational, cognitive and structural – are managed well in
strategic relationship between partners it will lead to social innovation. Better social
relationship and strategic alliance between partners engaged in social innovation
improves the outcomes and creates social impact that is meaningful. Austin (2000) very
clearly demonstrates in his research, the difference in innovation that can happen when
organizations engage in strategic partnership for CSR actions. According to Austin
(2000) there should be a distinction between philanthropic, transactional and integrative
partnerships. Philanthropic is very limited in scope and covers outsourcing or
donor-recipient relationships that characterize charity or donation. Transactional
partnerships are like cause-related marketing with moderate levels of engagement,
investment of resources and medium strategic alignment with the parties. But when
strategies between partners have a real connecting mission with higher levels of
engagement to achieve strategic value through planned integrated investment
of resources with defined scope of activities and culminates in meaningful strategic
outcomes, it becomes an integrated partnership. Integrated partnership has more
complex procedures and processes and is complex and resource intensive.
Hence a model of social innovation will start from an organization which identifies
and triggers attention to a social issue and then develops a team which has compassion
and a plan of action. The team will then develop partnership with a governmental or
NGO to look into details of the social issue which can be solved through strategic
competency or capability using resources of the company. This involves collaborations,
greater engagement and research into the social problems, looking into details and
collecting facts.
According to a McKinsey (Bonini and Mendonca, 2011) report, “Doing good by
doing well,” it is important for companies to understand the issues or social problem as
society will have great expectations about the company’s actions. This report was
made as part of shaping the future by solving social problems through business
strategy. Companies also need to make a good rapport with any partnering NGO or
organization and ensure that their doubts regarding the business aim of the company is
managed. Certain questions that are important for the company involved in social issue
are: did the company do a real appraisal of its value chain activities and find out what it
can do to solve the social issue? Given a specific issue and the time horizon for solving
the same, can the business get involved and balance the shareholder interests of
earnings that need to be achieved at the same time? What opportunities would present
themselves, if the company were to address the problem? Can the company take the
IJPPM pressure of assigning resources into these projects for the long term and what would be
65,2 the return? The McKinsey report concludes that success happens in the long term and
there are many examples where social issue solution-based innovations have increased
revenue or decreased cost for the company in future.

Methodology
262 A precise hypothesis is not required for this research as it is more exploratory and
focussed on content analysis in identifying powerful or recurrent words, concepts and
associations and partnerships in the social innovation domain. The assumption is that
words related to social issues, compassion and an urge to contribute and collaborate for
reaching strategic outcomes where resource matching and facts have importance, may
be common themes addressed by content analysis in social innovation.
The study will look into an innovation project as well as existing research articles and
use the same to understand how a social innovation model of success can be built on this
base. Some common terms and words and themes used in the e-mails, articles and reports
will be used for content analysis. Other news articles of social innovation will be used to
identify common key words in social innovation project experiences, reports or written
articles. This will help in identifying the power of certain words in social innovation
projects while projects oriented toward social issue seek to enter partnerships with
different agencies in addressing and solving socially relevant problems.
Content analysis is a method in social sciences which is used for studying
communication. Babbie (2010) defines it as the study of recorded human communications
such as books, websites, paintings and laws. It is considered as a scholarly method in
research which humanities and social science use by studying texts, or oral
communications. Lasswell (1948) formulated the core questions of content analysis
like: who says what to whom and why, and what extent with what effect. Thus a broad
definition of content analysis is: any technique for making inferences by objectively and
systematically identifying specifying characteristics of messages, including attention to
objectivity, inter subjectivity, a priori design, reliability, generalizability, reliability and
hypothesis testing and is not limited to types of variables that are measured or context in
which messages are created or presented Neuendorf (2002).

Relevance of the study

There are different ways in which social innovation is being defined and practiced by
organizations. By looking into various existing studies we intend to bring together and
integrate these studies into a more meaningful model that can enhance understanding
of social innovation. Our study proposes that social innovation’s outcome and its
process is more strategic; and anything which is not strategic and is not managed using
existing dimensions of management and business cannot essentially be termed as
social innovation. We would also like to challenge researchers focussing on compassion
alone as the motivation to engage in social innovation and would like to propose that
successful social innovation comes out of partners who are result-driven rather than
just goodwill-driven. Partner diversity and partner communication modes and words at
different points of the project will give a better understanding on how more strategic
conversations are more critical to social innovation projects than just transactional
conversation. Compassion and care for social cause could be the trigger, but our
attempt is to ensure that innovation that creates a social impact would happen through
strategic dialogues and actions taken by the partners involved.
 Many research articles in social innovation focus on different subject areas related Social
to social innovation. Some researchers focus on compassion as an attitude which is innovation
antecedent to social innovations (Grimes et al., 2013; Kanov et al., 2004). But Jamali
et al. (2011) looked at social innovation as an outcome of partnerships between
model
socially engaged organizations based on altruistic or strategic motivations. There are
other studies which focus on cognitive, relational and structural aspects of social
innovation (Maskell, 2001; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). 263
Austin (2000) drew attention to the level of engagement between social innovation
partners to develop a successful outcome. Landry et al. (2002) drew our
attention to the importance of intangible factors like tacit knowledge sharing
between partners in fostering innovation. Uzzi and Spiro (2005) focussed on
structural, relational and cognitive facets of social capital in enhancing innovative
outcomes in organizations.
This study will throw light on the power of certain words that are repeatedly used
in e-mails and articles; those which can give researchers in the field of social
innovation an idea about the power of words in social innovation. There are many
articles on social innovation with experiences and stories of social innovation. In this
study the researcher try to search how much of a similarity in certain words can be
seen in those articles. This can be useful to innovation leaders and human resource
leaders in generating and creating an environment of social innovation in their own
organizations. As Peter Drucker pointed out, this twenty-first century is the century
for solving social issues through innovative business actions. If companies do
not learn how it can be done using powerful words related to the topic in
their organization, then they may not survive in the long run. A model of social
innovation may help companies and organizations to enter into innovation in a more
planned manner.

Conceptual model for Social Innovation

We develop a conceptual model for social innovation below (See Figure 1). A
business venturing into social issues will first start to look into the viability and
business sense in solving the social issue. Hence the first initiating trigger point
of social innovation is a public cry or call on some social issue which seeks
business attention. Many NGOs and community agents, government and
academia and media may look into the issue from their viewpoint at first.
Government would need more coaxing to understand how the business or NGO
can solve a social issue. So the central problem is an attention-catching social
issue which can be related to the core competency or value chain activities of
the company.
Next comes the social actors or technology actors centered on the issue. These social
actors enter into a dynamic partnership which is structural, relational and cognitive.
Structural components of partnership are sharing close knowledge, intense and
repeated interactions, strong connectivity and partner diversity. The second level of
partnership is relational which constitutes incentives for sharing know how, trust and
credibility, and leveraging core competence. The third component of partnership
dynamics is cognitive: clarity of agreement, exchange of conventions, common
objectives and communication and coordination.
The dynamic relations between partners on these three dimensions will result in a
social innovation outcome which can be at three levels. The first will be strategic if all
the three dimensions of interactions between partners are high. The second outcome
IJPPM Structural:
65,2 • Close
Knowledge Outcome 1: strategic
• Intense and
Repeated
Outcome 2: transactional
Interactions
• Strong
Connectivity Outcome 3: philanthropic
264 • Partner
Diversity

Government

Corporate
Media

Social
Issue
Cognitive Relational
Community
• Clarity of • Incentive for
agreement NGO sharing know
• Exchange of how
convention Academia • Trust and
• Communication Credibility
Figure 1. and co- • Leveraging
Social innovation ordination core
• Common competence
model
Objective

will be transactional if there is medium level of component dynamics in partner

relationship. The third outcome could be just charity or philanthropy whereby the level
of the components of partnership dynamics is very low.
The model states the requirement of a strategic orientation among partners in
sharing a clear mission, sharing facts about the social issue, identifying the social
problem and its dynamics clearly, identifying the strengths of each partner and
leveraging partner core competencies related to their business in solving the social
problem. Collaboration between diverse partners at a strategic level is critical for
planning, implementing, monitoring and controlling the project of social innovation
involving multiple parties.
Business is interested in understanding the incentives of getting involved in a social
innovation project with other parties. Trust and credibility among the diverse parties
involved is critical for ensuring a mutual interest in entering into a relationship with
each other for a greater cause. Hence a match of, or complementary role of, their
competencies is made into a checklist and due diligence is checked as in any successful
project during a social innovation project. This will definitely create clarity of
conventions, agreement on the roles of actors involved, agreement on objectives and on
key performance indicators.
Engagement happens when a social issue usually catches the attention of all
parties: media, NGOs, government, academia and business partnerships. The
initiative to bring together different eligible partners and enable them to
communicate and collaborate among themselves is usually the role of a lead actor
in the whole project. This actor provides a lead for the innovation project and
uses strategic methods of communication in different communication network
models.
 The social capital which comes out of relational, structural and cognitive components Social
of partner relationships can become rigid if it always goes by existing shared mental innovation
models. Hence diversity in partnerships should encourage more meaningful interaction of
new ideas by building social networks that are meaningful for the social innovation
model
projects. Each of the partners in this model, whether it is NGO, academia, business or
government, will have their own people in the project. Of these engaged project team
members there will be few who meaningfully manage the social interaction and identify 265
social network leaders who share collaborative relationships across different partners.
These are the champions in the project team who can influence and communicate
innovative ideas and processes across the multiple partners.
Our research thus focusses on e-mails that are analyzed to identify these linchpins in
the social network and how their communication or social networks enabled
and challenged the social innovation project from its inception to completion. The
powerful process, levels of communication and power of repeated words used are
analyzed to understand social innovation communication networks, its process
and words of power.

Case study: The early infant diagnosis (EID) project

Globally, thousands of infants born with HIV die each year because outdated processes
delay essential testing and treatment. Early treatment is critical in helping control the
virus and improves survival rates. Working with the Clinton Health Access Initiative
(CHAI) and the Kenyan Ministry of Health (MOH), HP engaged in a process improvement
to the EID program to enhance early testing and treatment of infants exposed to HIV.
The initial scope of the process improvement focussed on Kenya.
In early 2012, six state-of-the-art HP data centers were connected to five Kenyan
government testing laboratories, providing a platform to speed transmission of data
and availability of information for the EID program and related health services in
Kenya. The process improvement and program transformation has since been
replicated in Uganda and is now being replicated in Nigeria, too.
Blood samples are assigned a barcode, tested, and then recorded in a database.
Instead of being sent by postal mail, results are routed by text message to SMS-enabled
HP printers in rural clinics. Blood samples are collected in local health clinics using
a process called “Dry Blood Spot” (DBS); these are packaged and mailed to a central
testing laboratory where the DBS cards are processed and analyzed using a
sophisticated DNA-based test known as PCR. In the “old” process, the results of the
HIV test were printed, placed in an envelope and mailed/posted back to the local
health clinic. Often, the results were either received late (there is a 30 day window
between when an infant is brought to the clinic for testing and the planned second visit
of the parent to the clinic 30 days later), or lost in the post/mail. Without a confirmatory
test result, treatment for HIV-positive infants is not initiated. The estimated
mortality rate for HIV-positive infants who are not placed on treated is 50 percent by
the age of two.
The “new process” provides for alternative and more reliable return of test results to
local health clinics in place of the traditional postal/mail service. Within the new
process, results can be e-mailed, sent by sms or text and printed out in the local clinic
utilizing a special printer equipped with a GSM chipset; or the test results can be
accessed by the local health workers via a secure online reporting system developed
by CHAI, Strathmore University, HP and associated partners.
IJPPM If clinics have internet access, they can also receive the results by e-mail or access
65,2 the data online. A process that used to take several months now reliably takes less than
30 days, allowing HIV-positive patients to receive antiretroviral treatment early.
Commencing treatment at an early stage is critical in controlling the virus and is
directly related to survival rates.
“In 2012, approximately 200,000 infants were tested in Kenya and Uganda through
266 EID, and it is estimated that number will grow to 220,000 in 2013. In 2012, HP was
honored with the Just means Social Innovation Award, the Computerworld Honors
Award, the GBC Health Award and the Health Award for the EID project” (Early Infant
Diagnosis Project, 2012).
Analysis of e-mails between EID partners. The content analysis aimed to look for
strategic and motivational aspects of communication as main themes. Any other
themes that emerged out of the analysis were analyzed to understand more about social
innovation communication. The three aspects of partnership – structural, cognitive and
relational components were also analyzed to understand more about partner
communications and its dynamics.
The e-mails refer to Table I received for content analysis started from December 1,
2009. Since most of the e-mails focus on how the project can be initiated at that point,
the relationship formation between CHAI and HP is evident.
Initially two main persons from CHAI were contacting Mr P*** for the
projects available for CHAI in south Africa for HP to work on healthcare data and
technology services domain for cost effective and accurate transactions for
MOH in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Kenya. There was more focus on Rwanda
project for HP to get involved. There was mention of having a programmatic meeting
with all players to discuss how the partnerships could work. They were very interested
in an health system strengthening initiative working along with the MOH in
South Africa.
As the discussions progressed the mails started to discuss about contributions
from HP and we could see in a statement that HP clearly focussed on three
dimensions on their contribution toward any project – cash, technology
and pro bono services. These three dimensions along with this statement from
HP clearly demonstrate that they would like to undertake a strategic programmatic
role:

The key element that I am managing internally is the transformation we are

undertaking from a traditional cash and technology grants-oriented operation with
very little hands on after the contribution to a strategic directive that our program
involvement be very hands on and not purely a financing role for ‘good work done
by others (P***).
Since CHAI was an NGO that gathered funds from many large organizations they did
have a focus on what funding contribution HP will be bringing to the project. While
this discussion was going on both HP and CHAI teams were trying to arrange other
internal team to meet with each other. It is interesting to see how they tried to arrange
meetings with the main concerned decision makers to get a green signal for the
project to go. By February 2010 CHAI was ready to give the Kenyan project instead of
the Rwandan project to HP; and HP would work on with the MOH for healthcare
system functionalities to solve their issues. This was an ideal decision for HP as HP
had more strategic presence and team in Kenya. In March 19, 2010 HP entered into
Excerpts of e-mail content Partners Structural Cognitive Relational

I should imagine you had a heavy week of SCM meetings and you are CHAI two lead officers Partner diversity Communication and Trust and
now hopefully in the loop with all of M*****’s contacts. It was really and HP director P*** Repeated coordination credibility
useful on my end for us to chat a bit more about your thoughts on the interactions
CHAI/HP partnership. We are really excited with the possibilities and
believe that we will be a great team
As promised, I have attached our proposal for our work in Rwanda. We Close knowledge
are currently working with the MOH to both develop and roll out a user-
friendly IT tool to manage the District Health System Strengthening
Framework. This tool will link with all other national databases (e.g.
HMIS, HRIS, etc.) and will allow the MOH and Districts to both
continually cost out the investments required and the operational costs
over time, and to track the effective functioning of the health system
Hi P*** CHAI two lead officers Partner diversity Clarity of agreemen Incentive for
As I am preparing my internal team for our call Tuesday they are and HP director and Knowledge base Strong connectivity sharing
going to want to know about hp’s funding-level interest in our work. MOH South Africa sharing Exchange knowhow
I meant to ask this yesterday but neglected to of convention
I think our call should be about areas of project work and the best ways
for partnership going forward, but wanted to get an idea if you had a
monetary contribution in mind
Also, we should discuss prior to the call what role budgets, funding
might have. I think you and I are on the same page but just want to
make sure. We wanted to provide you with a high-level idea of the
projects, which we can then discuss further on our call tomorrow.
I would like to point out that we wont be walking through the power
point tomorrow and as you suggested will be discussing our synergies
more broadly
From P*** to CHAI
I am also keen to get your feedback from the call and open questions
from you and the rest of the CHAI team so that we can fully address
and clarify any issues – please let me know how you’d like to do this –
e-mail or phone

(continued )
innovation
Social

e-mails
elements of
and relational
structural, cognitive
Content analysis of
model

Table I.
267

partnership in
 65,2

268

Table I.
IJPPM
Excerpts of e-mail content Partners Structural Cognitive Relational
Focus on Kenya as strategic priority location mail from P*** CHAI two lead officers Partner diversity Common objective Core
I have a call this evening with our MEMA region MD re: country and HP director Repeated intense competence
prioritization (Kenya is still our planned initial country focus) interactions
We are still interested in Rwanda, but to be perfectly candid, as I have Close knowledge
alluded in previous conversations, Rwanda does not figure
prominently in our business priorities, and this fact is proving to be an
anchor on the overall plan – I am inclined to ‘hold’ on Rwanda for a
later phase to avoid risk to the overall strategy
Getting senior leaders of both CHAI and HP to interact HP team and CHAI team
Intense interactions Clarity of agreement Leveraging
Common objective Trust and
credibility
“The key element that I am managing internally is the transformation CHAI program leads and Partner diversity Clarity of agreement Core
we are undertaking from a traditional cash and technology grants- P*** competence
oriented operation with very little hands on after the contribution to a
strategic directive that our program involvement be very hands on and
not purely a financing role for ‘good work done by others’ (P***)
We have a green light on Kenya and I would suggest as a next step 2 P**** and CHAI team Knowledge base Common objective Leveraging
immediate actions. Do you have an overview of the projects CHAI is Partner diversity core
presently engaged in in Kenya and also prospective projects? I would Strong connectivity competence
like to start reviewing this with the HP team asap to evaluate potential
for HP collaboration and contribution. This is also to give our team a
sense of the scope of the work underway in Kenya
CHAI team to P***: I have engaged the team to start working on Kenya
documents for you. Also, based on schedules and timing here, the 26th
looks like it will be best for the next call. Should we confirm that date?
G**** CHAI Africa team to A**** Chai lead correspondent person to
HP – We have already found a quick win on the HP Kenya side, on a
USG supported hospital reform program covering 10 large hospitals.
I have made a tentative pitch to support the ICT (hardware and
software) part of this program which is an excellent entry point for
HP’s hospital management product and equipment

(continued )
Excerpts of e-mail content Partners Structural Cognitive Relational
Thanks for the note – playing massive catch up on all fronts. had a P*** and CHAI team on Partner diversity Communication and Core
fantastic call Wednesday with Santiago and Rainer – our MEMA and EID project Close knowledge coordination competence
Africa managing directors. Will come back to you Monday with Exchange of Trust and
proposal for call times to introduce our team in Kenya to G**** and convention credibility
J****
Also spoke briefly with Maeve re: an SMS printer idea/request that our
IPG folks and cloud services folks are very enthusiastic to explore – we
could potentially link this into the EID project or related work in
Kenya – can cover this next week too
Discussing monetary funding and contributions when CHAI New CHAI COO and Partner diversity Clarity of agreement Incentive for
lead changed team; and P*** and sharing
New COO from CHAI to HP a misunderstanding A**** of HP know how
had set our expectations at $***k (or possibly more), not $**k. We
really do expect and need our corporate partners like HP to support the
foundation at that level. I do not know what conversations you and
Allyson had but there are many factors that drive our need for this
level of support that I’m happy to discuss with you. Perhaps this is a
misunderstanding that I hope we can move past quickly as I think that
the work we can do together is very powerful. But want to make sure
I am open and transparent about this. Hope to speak with you soon
The SQL software is not sold by HP, what has been quoted by the HP sales team personnel Partner diversity Communication and
partner is the software which includes the standard warranty from to HP social innovation Repeated coordination of
Microsoft. Yes, the cost for installation by the partner is covered team interactions different partners
in the quote
On the involvement of G**** and J**** – Yes, both were involved in
the first meeting, and later J**** took the lead on behalf of CHAI.
So we have been working with J***** as the lead for the project
He also wrote about other list of partners for EID project
Note: aAcronyms have been used to represent persons to maintain confidentiality
innovation
Social

model

Table I.
269
IJPPM a project with around ten hospitals in MOH Kenya to provide hospital management
65,2 and healthcare systems with CHAI:
Also spoke briefly with M**** (CHAI team): an SMS printer idea/request that our IPG folks
and cloud services folks are very enthusiastic to explore - we could potentially link this into
the EID project or related work in Kenya - can cover this next week too (P*** mail).

270 The lines above indicate the entry to a social innovation project out of the other social
impact project that HP received through Partnership with CHAI. The words
“enthusiastic” and “explore” clearly brings in the indication of a willingness and
interest in doing something more for the project which will translate as good work for
HP in the long run. Most of the other words in the mails focussed on how the two
partners can get a strategic fit, through clarifying facts and issues, identifying areas of
differences and potential opportunities in the project with MOH Kenya.
By March 27, 2010 CHAI sent all details of their main team whom P*** can
collaborate with for rolling out the project.
By around April 17, 2010 there was slight change in the initial partners engaged in
communication with P*** in HP. Hence P*** had to again make the new person
understand that the commitment from HP is not a big amount or just a fund, it is more
of a mix of cash, technology and longer term pro bono support services. Those legal
and transactional issues were sorted out professionally as the partners did want the
project to complete for the greater good. HP involved Computech Kenya and
Reddington Kenya for product and server installations for the EID project. HP internal
team member T**** M**** as well as CHAI lead J**** H**** were also main actors in
the EID project in Kenya for early diagnosis system to treat aids victims as early as
possible from child birth (Table I).
The e-mails show a clear strategic orientation toward the project where there is clear
indication of project being taken seriously from all dimensions like, time, cost, resources
and strategic fit between various partners. The involvement of main partners and their
subsequent involvement of other partners in the project also emphasize the strategic
orientation. There was no room for compassion in the whole communication, but more
business like conversations were held between various partners. But they also showed an
engagement to ensure the project win and successful effective implementation and roll
out. HP was finally entrusted in making HMIS and HRIS systems for healthcare of ten
hospitals of MOH Kenya through CHAI foundation. The EID project idea came
in the month of November 2010 from CHAI. Before that HP was engaged with CHAI and
MOH Kenya in the project of creating healthcare systems for ten hospitals in Kenya.
HP was enthusiastic and did explore the options in getting EID project done. This
emerged as a social innovation project among the projects that HP did with CHAI and
MOH Kenya.
The trail of events culminated with a ribbon cutting and press coverage for MOH data
center inauguration on February 2011. According to P****, as well as collaboration there is
competition between companies for resources, and recognition. Hence we can assume that
this competition of different motives solidifies into a shared mental model of providing a
solution that creates social impact, and social innovation happens. People like J**** H****
of CHAI team who had very good relationships with government entities and MOH Kenya,
helped in ensuring the project success. Level of trusts in partnership and communication
that transcends from formal to informal and continuity of the conversation, even when
partners engaged in both sides may move in and out during a project, is equally important.
Summary and conclusion Social
The social innovation project of HP – EID project – became a success as it followed a more innovation
strategic collaborative-based model. There could be many actors and partners in a social
innovation project. As the model put forward by the authors there are three level of
model
partnership dynamics that happens in a social innovation project – relational, structural
and cognitive-level dynamics. This can be seen clearly in all the mail transactions that
happened between the various partners from initiation of the project to the end of the 271
project. Many of the project communications had been face-to-face as well as on social
networks like video conferencing and web-based meetings. But the emerging trends
or patterns of conversation clearly demonstrate that social problem identification
triggers and partners are brought together through initiating conversation based on the
capabilities and core competencies and knowledge base of the partners. There is a
complementary collaboration as well as competition between partners to become active in
the relationship.
Clarifying objectives, mission, cost and time-based frames are critical success
terminologies or words used in the project. Collaboration, enthusiasm, strategic fit,
exploring for the fit, analyzing the existing strengths of the organization in terms of fit
with the project that comes to them, seems to be the important factors in social
innovation outcomes. There were no compassion-oriented words that can be seen in the
mail communication although the diverse project partners strategically realize how the
project can improve life expectancy of HIV affected infants.
Instead of awarding money or products, HP brings together international leaders
and works with experts across borders, industries and institutions to get to the root
causes of global issues in education, health and entrepreneurship. By focussing HP’s
expertise and technology where they can have greatest impact, they are pioneering
systemic solutions that can be scaled to enrich lives and communities worldwide (from
www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-information/social-innovation/grant-information.html, accessed on
December 24, 2013).

References
Aldrich, H. (1999), Organizations Evolving, Sage, London.
Andrew, J.P., DeRocco, E.S. and Taylor, A. (2009), The Innovation Imperative in Manufacturing:
How the United States Can Restore its Edge, Boston Consulting Group, Boston, MA,
available at: www.bcg.com/documents/file15445.pdf (accessed December 2014).
Ashman, D. (2001), “Civil society collaboration with business: bringing empowerment back in”,
World Development, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 1097-1113.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), “Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
same, different, or both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Austin, J.E. (2000), The Collaboration Challenge: How Non Profits and Business Succeed Through
Strategic Alliances, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Babbie, E. (2010), The Practice of Social Research, ISBN 9780495598411, 12th ed., Cengage
Learning, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, p. 530.
Baumol, W. (2002), The Free-Market Innovation Machine – Analyzing the Growth Miracle of
Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. and Mol, M.J. (2008), “Management innovation”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 825-845.
Bonini, S. and Mendonca, L. (2011), “Doing good by doing well: shaping a sustainable future”,
McKinsey on Society, Winter, pp. 44-51.
IJPPM Chesbrough, H.W. (2006), Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape,
Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
65,2
Dees, J.G. (1998), The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, Kaufman Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
De Man, A. and Duysters, G. (2005), “Collaboration and innovation: a review of effects of
mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation”, Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 12,
272 pp. 1377-1387.
Drucker, P.F. (1986), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Drucker, P.F. (2002), Managing in the Next Society, Truman Talley Books, New York, NY.
Early Infant Diagnosis Project (2012), available at: http://healthmarketinnovations.org/program/
early-infant-diagnosis-project-eid (accessed December 31, 2015).
Elkington, J. (2013), “Red alert for the green agenda”, Director, Vol. 66 No. 9 p. 32.
Grant, A.M. and Berry, J.W. (2011), “The necessity of others is the mother of invention: intrinsic
and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 73-96.
Grimes, M.G., McMullen, J.S., Vogus, T.J. and Miller, T.L. (2013), “Studying the origins of social
entrepreneurship: compassion and the role of embedded agency”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 460-463. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0429.
Hartigan, P. (2006), “It’s about people, not profits”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 42-45.
Helmer, O., Brown, B. and Gordon, T. (1966), Social Technology, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Jamali, D., Yianni, M. and Abdallah, H. (2011), “Strategic partnerships, social capital and
innovation: accounting for social alliance innovation”, Business Ethics: A European Review,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 375-391.
Kanov, J.M., Maithis, S., Worlene, M.C., Dutton, J.I., Frost, P.J. and Lilius, J.M. (2004), “Compassion
in organizational life”, Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47, pp. 808-827.
Kanter, R.M. (1999), “From spare change to real change: the social sector as a beta site for
business innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 123-132.
Kickul, J., Trejeson, S., Baco, S. and Griffiths, M. (2012), “Social business education – an interview
with Nobel Laureate Muhammed Yunus”, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 453-462.
Landry, R., Amara, N. and Lamari, M. (2002), “Does social capital determine innovation? To what
extent?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 69 No. 7, pp. 681-701.
Lasprogata, G.A. and Cotten, M.N. (2003), “Contemplating ‘enterprise’: the business and legal challenges
of social entrepreneurship”, American Business Law Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 567-595.
Lasswell, H.D. (1948), “The structure and function of communication in society”, in Bryson, L.
(Ed.), The Communication of Ideas, Harper & Row, New York, NY, pp. 37-51.
Little, A. (2006), “The innovation high ground: winning tomorrow’s customers using
sustainability driven innovation”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 35-37.
Lowe, P., Phillipson, J. and Lee, R.P. (2008), “Socio-technical innovation for sustainable food
chains: roles for social science”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 226-233.
Lundstrom, A. and Zhou, C. (2011), “Promoting innovation based on social sciences and
technologies: the prospect of a social innovation park”, Innovation: The European Journal
of Social Science Research, Vol. 24 Nos 1-2, pp. 133-149.
Mair, J. and Marti, I. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction,
and delight”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Maskell, P. (2001), “Social capital, innovation and competitiveness”, in Baron, S., Field, J. and Schuller, T. Social
(Eds), Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 111-123.
innovation
Menon, M.G.K. (2001), “The characteristics and promotion of innovation”, Social Sciences and model
Innovation, OECD, Paris, pp. 77-87.
Mulgan, G., Wilkie, N., Tucker, S., Ali, R., David, F. and Liptrot, T. (2006), Social Silicon Valleys:
A Manifesto for Social Innovation: What it is, Why it Matters, and How it Can be
Accelerated, ISBN 1905551010, The Young Foundation and Basingstoke Press, London. 273
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage.
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), “Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “Strategy and society, the link between competitive advantage
and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011), “Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89
Nos 1-2, pp. 62-77.
Roberts, D. and Woods, C. (2005), “Changing the world on a shoestring, the concept of
social entrepreneurship”, University of Auckland Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-51.
Sampson, R. (2007), “R&D alliances and firm performance: the impact of technological diversity
and alliance organization on innovation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 364-386.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Boston, MA.
Shaw, E. and Carter, S. (2007), “Social entrepreneurship: theoretical antecedents and empirical
analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes”, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 418-434.
Sivadas, E. and Dwyer, R. (2000), “An examination of organizational factors influencing new
product success in internal and alliance based processes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64
No. 1, pp. 31-49.
Thompson, J. (2002), “The world of the social entrepreneur”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 412-431.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
Uzzi, B. and Spiro, J. (2005), “Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem”, American
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 447-504.
Waddell, S. (2000), “A win-win role for civil society in business strategy”, Journal for Nonprofit
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 24-43.

Further reading
Acs, Z. and Audretch, D. (2003), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Dees, J.G. (2007), “Taking social entrepreneurship seriously”, Society, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 24-31.
Holsti, O.R. (1969), Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
IJPPM Kimberly, A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, p. 10.
65,2 Mulgan, G. (2006), “The process of social innovation”, Innovations: Technology, Governance,
Globalization, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 145-162.
Sen, P. (2007), “Ashoka’s big idea: transforming the world through social entrepreneurship”,
Futures, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 534-553.

274
Corresponding author
Beena Salim Saji can be contacted at: beenasaji.s@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.