1 Introductory Remarks

As digital and physical life-worlds increasingly melt together, a growing number of people and large sections of society are influenced by inherent widespread intersections between these spheres. Not least the success story of mobile devices has led to a normalization of digitization in people’s everyday lives, in private, as well as in professional environments. Devices and gadgets at hand seem like catalysts for transformatory tendencies in multiple societal sectors, from shopping over media consumption to the recruitment of service providers and individual transportation.

While relations between customers and companies evolve towards cooperative development of personalized solutions quite rapidly, the social and public service sector and relationships within the formal rehabilitation system are catching up slower. But here also, social practices are adapting and changing. Various legislative renovations facilitate custom-sized solutions aiming at improved participation opportunities in society. Especially people with activity limitations might be able to profit from these developments. Subsumed here under the term “inclusive social innovation”, we find phenomena ranging from new technologies (i.e. 3D-printed body-bound prosthetics) to communication channels (i.e. inclusive language), and new employment possibilities on the first labor market.

People can be unable to use ICT in their living environment due to unavailability and inaccessibility or lack of knowledge and experience. For most people with activity limitations, a ‘melting’ of digital and physical lifeworlds does not take place to the same degree as for others. Initiatives try to address this digital gap through innovative solutions under the maxima of co-creation and participation [2]. However, these initiatives suffer from various barriers in the process of unfolding their ideas’ real potential. Especially when trying to replicate their theory of innovative practice to new contexts, these barriers come into effect.

Accordingly, the common theme and red thread of this article is the question of how already functioning socially innovative solutions can be best transferred to other contexts. Previous research [3] showed the high complexity of factors influencing the development of a social innovation. In order to find out if they help the initiative to breach, if they hold potential to be adapted or if they have be accepted and if possible minimized in their negative effects, these factors need to be understood, identified and categorized. Section 2 is dedicated to present an understanding of the term “inclusive social innovation” as well as to reflect existing theories of scaling processes. Deducted from these presumptions, Subsect. 2.3 focuses on explaining the importance of considering specific contexts and environmental structures of the surrounding in which a functioning solution should be transferred. In paragraph three the authors present an in-depths case study out of the spectrum of inclusive social innovation. The PIKSL-laboratories in Germany are currently working on scaling up their organization. Here, people with so called mental disabilities are working as experts for the own cause, as they are seen as “experts in reducing complexities”. The presented generic context-understanding guide is then applied to the PIKSL-laboratories to derive a set of questions to be posed when starting a scaling process (Sect. 3.2).

2 ‘Scaling’ Inclusive Social Innovation

In order to make the ideas of scaling “inclusive social innovations” tangible, the terms and concepts used need further elaboration. As discourses on inclusion and social innovation are heterogeneous and vary in their terminologies, this section functions as a clarification of different notions. Over a working definition of inclusive social innovation, an outline of theories and assumptions on scaling is compiled to critically reflect on the term at itself. To conclude these first theoretical presumptions, a generic understanding of scaling inclusive social innovation is drafted at the end of the chapter.

2.1 Inclusive Social Innovation

Connotations related to the term inclusion still vary greatly in science, as well as in politics and everyday-language. Depending on political, economic and scientific interests in specific fields, the term is conferred with varying semantic concepts and regional specifications. For example, German discourses are often centered on an understanding of inclusion as an educational principle according to which every educational institution should design their structures, practices and organizational alignments in a way that allows everybody to participate in the educational system without obstacles. The underlying maxim can be described as a recognition and appreciation of diversity (cf. [4]). In the last decade, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) changed this perception significantly and brought in a wider scope in the sense of a normative socio-political perspective. Here, the human right to fully participate in all societal subsystems is stressed. This perspective bears a clear destination route: Full participation is the way to the societal objective inclusion, a theoretical angle which holds great potential to describe and analyze social conditions and societal development potentials. The main question to be posed is how a community can eradicate societal exclusion and thereby equalize participation opportunities.

As elaborated in previous work (cf. [3]) social innovations hold great potential to help communities to follow that direction. Social innovation initiatives prompt a new combination or figuration of practices in areas of social action. Provided by certain actors or constellations of actors who cooperate in order to create novel pathways to social and individual needs, these new solutions differentiate from entrenched forms of practice [4]. Dealing with social exclusion, this means inclusive social innovation is a new combination or figuration of those social practices which tackle societal exclusion in order to equalize participation opportunities for all members of society in all their diversity in all societal subsystems. All aspects in this working definition need to be further explained and set into the specific context to really determine whether a new solution holds the potential to be an inclusive social innovation. Analyzing prevailing circumstance in specific reference systems might therefore enable statements regarding push-and-pull parameters initiatives are confronted with.

2.2 Assumptions on Scaling

In an extensive scientific literature review on publications about scalability of social enterprises Weber et al. [6] emphasize the heterogeneous use of terms in the discourse on scaling processes. Concepts behind “scalability, transferability, replicability, and adaptability” (ibid.) vary in definitions and, in consequence, are used inconsistently. The majority of definitions of scaling are closely linked to the idea of broadening the social impact of a social business and can be characterized as economy-centric and focused onto organisational aspects. Political and systemic factors are neglected within these models of understanding. In order to create a generic understanding on how to plan a process where a functioning solution is transferred from one environment to another, a broader meaning of scaling which takes environmental factors into account needs to be implemented. Alongside Bradach [7], who emphasizes the possibilities of replication as ability of social innovation initiatives to “move an organisation’s theory of change to a new location”, the focus shifts towards an ex-ante perspective of scaling, considering environmental predispositions of transferring a specific mode of action.

Weber et al. [6] assemble a ladder of decisions which has to be made when planning a scaling process. As this “Critical Decision-Making Path” points out a set of environmental factors, it might be fruitful to take a closer look at it. While the first three steps within this path refer directly to the initiative to scale up, the four further decisions to make are rather related to the respective contextual parameters. All decisions to be made can be headed with a dimension addressed.

The first decision to be made is to (dis-)agree on the “commitment of leading and executing individuals who drive the scaling process” [6]. The scaling process might already fail if there is not enough will and motivation from the staff involved. Secondly, initiatives and organisations must ensure that the managerial side is sufficiently equipped in terms of personnel competence-wise. A third step is related to the overall structure and modes of operation. It has to be examined, to which degree complexity might be reduced, to get to the heart and core of the innovative character. The degree replicability depends on a high level of complexity reduction. The elements which are the main components of the initiative might then be replicated to other contexts. In a fourth step, these contexts need to be analysed according to verify the given social demand in the respective environment. This stage is a critical point, because a non-existing social demand means the end to the scaling effort. Provided that a social demand is given, the scaling process moves to the question for necessary resources (step 5). It is important to know if the social innovation is capable to obtain relevant resources and whether the context provides them and if they are accessible. A further step towards scaling is the reconciliation consideration if partner organisations might be a fruitful addition to the overall process, and if yes, which ones. The seventh decision to address is related to adaptability. It is a key component and divided into two sub-questions; “Is adaption necessary?” and “Is adaption possible?”. Herein lies a high dependency to the sixth step, the context must be clearly examined in order to understand whether conditions of the targeted environment require adaptation or not. If adaption is necessary but impossible, the scaling process is again in danger to terminate.

The following table sums up these steps and shows inherent dimensions addressed as well as the main aspects in question. Also, the left column elucidates the level on which the different steps operate (Table 1).

Table 1. Levels, dimensions and aspects in decisions on scaling, following Weber et al. [6], own representation
Full size table

Taking this decision-making path as a basis, it is now essential to further elaborate possibilities to understand ecosystems of social innovation, which addresses in particular the last four steps of the pathway. Under the assumption of the human rights approach to inclusion and taking multi-layered dimensions into account, a wider scope has to be drawn, which is able to consider multiple stakeholders, as well as various contexts coming into play. As it has been shown, inclusion is a process and objective at the same time, making it a complete task and overall challenge for society as a whole. Consequently, planning a scaling process requires to consider this assumption by a multidimensional foundation of variables to be observed, and, at the same time, keeping main obstacles of a scaling process in mind.

2.3 A Generic Understanding of Context-Dependency of a Scaling Process

As it has already been shown, social innovation for inclusion is heavily reliant on a suitable ecosystem and its capacity to accept new practices. This “absorptive capacity”, a term deriving from international management studies [8], illustrates the complexity of innovation processes by broadening the perspective: It is not only the innovators, those developing and promoting new solutions for society, but also the individual and collective users and beneficiaries which come into play and decide whether an alternative practice is taken up or not.

To leverage an ecosystem for inclusive social innovation means at the same time to boost society’s inclusiveness alongside human rights requirements of full and equal participation opportunities for all citizens. Social innovation initiatives, that have already proven their effectiveness and social impact, hold potential to be equally effective in other contexts, if the transferring process is carefully and thoroughly planned. Scaling must be understood in a wholesome angle, taking various dimensions into account. As theories of innovation show, adoption of social practice is a main factor in the process of successful breaching of social innovation initiatives into society; therefore, all relevant stakeholders need to be kept in mind. Recent research efforts show the strong multi-stakeholder approach social innovation initiatives are based upon: multiple actors from several sectors cooperate while counting on synergies and knowledge transfer to tackle old and new social problems. A theoretical framework therefore needs to build bridges between research, practitioners and policy makers, while focus on the reconfiguration of the interfaces of cross-sector co-operation and the establishment of governance structures to support [9] these modes of action. But aside from relevant stakeholders, it is also mandatory to identify context variables coming into play when thinking about the question how something new might be able to come into a context where pre-existing conditions are implemented and have grown traditionally.

In communication sciences, an equivalent issue occupies scientists and news producers. It is the question, why some news make it into mass media and others remain in the drawer of press agencies and alike. Weischenberg [10] introduced a model which differentiates four contexts of relevance to this issue of diffusion. The four layers (Roles, Functions, Structures and Norms) are arranged in a way that resembles the appearance of an onion, whereby the role-context forms the innermost layer, “functions” are represented on the second layer, structures are reflected on the third and norms is settled on the outer layer. Kaletka et al. [11] transferred this model from media science to the context of social innovation: Based on their model as it becomes visible in the following figure, the “onion” is permeable, which means it may be analysed from the outer to the inner layer or vice versa. But, as the contexts are depended on one another, they all need to be analysed in the course of examination. It has to be noted, that internal factors of a social innovation are not yet involved in this analytical matrix, therefore interrelations are not considered at this point (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Contexts of social innovation, cf. [1]

Full size image

To test the model in synopsis with assumptions on scaling, which were laid out in Sect. 2.2, the PIKSL-laboratories are presented in the next explanations as a use case. The focus lies on a brief description of PIKSL’s main operating principles and efforts that have already been implemented to stimulate the targeted scaling process.

3 Case Study: Scaling the PIKSL-Laboratory

Not least stimulated by the CRPD, several developments in recent years have led to a number of renovations within national legislations and standards regarding participation opportunities of people with disabilities and activity limitations. But these new guidelines in favor of a fully inclusive society do not automatically lead to its realization. Especially conservative-corporatist welfare-systems like the German are characterized through a controlling role of the state, whereby market issues play a minor role in comparison to liberal modes of governance.Footnote 1 Traditional non-government organizations are main stakeholders in the field of social services provision, which makes it more difficult for new players and unusual collaborations to position themselves on the market. But nevertheless, these new initiatives which can be described as social innovations gain more and more impact. PIKSL, an initiative from Düsseldorf, Germany, is one of those and dedicated to promote regular employment opportunities for people with activity limitations resulting from the unfavorable interplay between their cognitive and mental abilities and environmental factors. In the following, the initiative is described in detail, whereby the scaling opportunities are in focus of the explanations.

3.1 PIKSL – A Social Innovation on the Rise

PIKSL (Person-centered Interaction and Communication for more Participation) aims at reducing digital barriers and the general complexity of every-day life in order to facilitate an inclusive society and to improve labor market participation possibilities of people with learning difficulties. Founded in 2011, PIKSL now wants to take its ideas and working philosophies to the next level via expanding their organization and moving into new locations.

Working Basis of PIKSL

To centre all efforts on every employee’s resources and own potential is one operating principle of PIKSL. The team collaboratively develops innovative ideas to tackle challenges of everyday day life while strictly focusing on the actual needs of people. In its personnel policy, PIKSL relies on a mix of competences of people with and without disabilities. The inclusive team works on simplifying products and services, while people with learning difficulties function as experts in the process of finding suitable solutions for reducing complexity.

Project-bound branches dedicated to different topics and targets are the core of PIKSL’s mode of work. While the subproject employs people with learning difficulties as IT trainers offering inclusive computer classes, is specified towards simplifying digital content via identification of digital barriers through people with learning difficulties. These barriers are often not visible for people without activity limitations, but recognisable by people with learning disabilities as experts for their own cause. The service of has already been used by large German companies willing to reduce complexity in their web-appearances and to simplify customer service. Within the third branch, an innovative approach has been developed to promote interactivity in museums. Scarfs in different colors hold barrier-free audio guide-information, making it easy for people with different perceptions to follow the information. All these branches were already able to produce social impact, and, furthermore one transfer has already taken place as a laboratory opened up in another city, basing their work on the original idea while following the same principles of work.

Feasibility of Scaling PIKSL

Since 2016 PIKSL is supported financially by SKala, a funding program by a private foundation investing into social start-ups and non-profit organizations. The SKala-initiative aims at supporting organizations with considerable social impact to grow and transfer their ideas and theories. A feasibility study concerning PIKSL’s scalability was an integral component of the support-scheme in its first phase [12]. As PIKSL started in 2011 and is established as a department within the non-government organization “In der Gemeinde leben gGmbH” (“Living in the community” in the legal form of a not-for profit limited enterprise) as well as one successful transfer has already taken place, the main question of the study was not whether or not the underlying concept is working. It rather focused on the exploitation of pathways to secure future financial sustainability to open up new laboratories in new contexts to maximize social impact. In order to exploit these pathways, a strategic reconfiguration of service and product philosophies was necessary. Until then, PIKSL did not operate upon a clear definition of the own services and products. The initiatives reacted to external requests rather than actively promoting the own product and service portfolio. Tailor-made offers for every single customer inquiry required a great deal of energy and ressources, every price setting had to be calculated, every workshop had to be planned individually and the personnel had to be trained anew for every assignment. The demands increase in view of the multiple services offered. This inconsistency regarding product and service placement and distribution was identified as a main obstacle of PIKSL’s dissemination within the feasibility study. Therefore, top priority was to minimize inconsistencies and to sharpen PIKSL’s outward and inward appearance. As a result, the SKala-Team set up a catalogue of products and services offered, whereby the unique selling proposition (people with learning disabilities as experts for reducing complexity in the digital world) was stressed. Pricing for the service with the highest social impact, was completely cancelled within this process to even lower the thresholds to participate and to maximize social impact.

Strategy to Scale PIKSL

In the course of reflection of the term scaling (cf. Sect. 2.2), it has been pointed out that scaling does not start with a simple replication of a solution, but with several decisions that have to be made in advance. Alongside the decision-making path Weber et al. introduced, it can be stated that the willingness and readiness as well as a suitable degree of commitment from all members involved have to be ascertained. The feasibility study with its inherent effort can be seen as a major sign for this overall commitment of the relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, quality and quantity of management competences within the organization have to be secured. This has been done by hiring new external experts and via continuing training of the core staff. It is also necessary to reduce the overall complexity of the social innovation initiative. Breaking down PIKSL to its core unique selling proposition meets this precondition. If a solution should be transferred to other contexts, it is essential to actually meet social demands within the targeted new ecosystem. Regarding PIKSL, the social demand is not yet clear-cut. International and national statutory provisions require an inclusive job market, and the overstrained welfare and rehabilitation system calls for alternative solutions, but on a micro-level a social demand cannot be easily defined. Likewise, there is no general rule indicating the amount of ressources that has to be invested and whether or not collaboration should be envisaged. Furthermore it is an open question, if collaboration with external stakeholders is appropriate and practicable. Closely intertwined to these micro-level questions is the issue, if adaptability is necessary, and, if yes, possible. The last four steps within Weber et al.’s [6] scaling decision making-path need further exploration to plan the scaling process. Inherent questions are:

  1. 1.

    Is there a social demand for the solution in the envisaged context? Which internal and external factors might affect the social demand?

  2. 2.

    Which resources are necessary to transfer the solution into the envisaged context? Are there organizational and environmental parameters restricting or promoting the accessibility of resources?

  3. 3.

    Should collaboration with external partners be sought for or not? What does the ecosystem offer, e.g. in terms of possible collaborations?

  4. 4.

    Should PIKSL be adapted to the new environment? Inhowfar? How open is PIKSL itself to adaption processes? How absorptive is the environment?

In the following, these questions are addressed by applying the context understanding guide elaborated in Subsect. 2.3 in order to exemplify a way to coherently examine a possible scaling pathway of PIKSL.

3.2 Generic Understanding of PIKSL’s Context

The matrix given below builds on Eckhardt et al.’s [1] work on understanding drivers and barriers for social innovation. It depicts the interplay between the contexts identified and is fortified by the aspects of the decision-making path of scaling, introduced by Weber et al. [6]. In this way the context understanding guide gains a new interrelational perspective and new dimensions (Table 2).

Table 2. Applied context-understanding guide to scaling aspirations of PIKSL
Full size table

PIKSL’s aspiration to scale is taken as a basis for the matrix, whereby the four contexts identified form the analytical layers. To combine assumptions on scaling, especially those considering the ex-ante perspective of predispositions of the process, the questions laid out above are applied and intertwined. As welfare and social policy endeavor to react to social demands and inherent legislative foundations mirror these efforts, the context of norms can be read as a direct response to perceived social problems and pressing demands. Interacting external and internal structures determine the resources PIKSL might need to bring their solution to light. When the context of functions in terms of internal working basis and external modes of governance meet, it gets possible to derive statements regarding the necessity of adapting the organization’s practices. The context of roles shows inhowfar additional partners are needed or not. Furthermore, it gives hints with regard to the character of these possible partners and the new competences they might bring into the initiative. For an exhaustive analysis, the matrix would need to be applied, until every context crosses with the others. In this first exemplifying step, it was not possible to undergo a full analysis. These issues identified via the decision-making path of a scaling process work as cross-cutting themes to identify relevant internal and external push and pull factors, which extend influence on scaling efforts.

As illustrated, the cross-cutting themes concerning the scaling process are displayed in the cross-column of the table. In the upper row and left column the identified context layers are listed, with external factors to be found on the left and internal, organizational factors displayed in the upper row. In the light grey fields, internal influencing factors within the respective context-interplays are laid out. The red blocks contain aspects on external factors, which need to be considered by planning to transfer a solution.

By taking a closer look at given social demands on the internal spectrum, the high importance of an inclusive working principle as a general rule and its compliance with applicable law are traceable. The unique selling proposition of people with activity limitations as experts for their own cause is a structural component, which is essential to PIKSL and cannot be given up in the endeavors of scaling. Moreover, on the layer of functions it is evident how PIKSL’s anchoring in the rehabilitation system meets the social demand of creating an inclusive labour market. Also, on the context of roles it becomes clear that from the staff to the management level the general aim of equalizing participation opportunities is deeply rooted. External existing structures, like political, economic or technical imperatives as well as general environmental factors (includes also i.e. public transportation) also take effect. Focusing on the question if PIKSL is able to acquire needed ressources, the matrix shows in the context of norms that renovations of legislative framework conditions led to new funding schemes promoting an inclusive society. PIKSL’s internal structures and economical principles let these new funding possibilities appear achievable if needed (context of functions) and properly accessed (roles). Centered on the issue of necessary and possible adaption, only vague predictions can be made at the moment, as there is no envisaged target context, yet. From external aspects, it is clear that wherever PIKSL is trying to open up new laboratories, these will be placed within an existent system where ICT infrastructures (functions), regional or local statutory requirements (norms) and administrative realities with specific stakeholders (roles) open up and limit opportunities. Regarding possible partners, it has already been decided that cooperation is desired. PIKSL wants to work with external experts, other organizations and, if possible, also with respective public authorities. The four different layers provide first hints towards the possible character of the partners. At first, the relevant stakeholders in the ecosystems need to know about PIKSL, which requires internal resources to spread PIKSL’s idea via marketing and other public relation activities. The unique selling proposition needs to be understood and accepted widely by potential partners. As it is the heart of PIKSL which cannot be removed in the scaling process, it is highly necessary to inform and convince possible partners.

4 Conclusion: ‘Planning’ Scaling by Applying the Decision-Making-Pathway to a Series of Workshops

The application of the “onion-model” to the specific use case of scaling the PIKSL-laboratories supported the identification process of relevant internal and external aspects and promoted an idea of what is important to consider when first planning a scaling process. With a focus on macro-aspects in Weber et al.’s [6], decision-making path, the matrix provides a simple tool when first starting the scaling endeavor. It clarifies PIKSL’s multi-faceted character, as a new social enterprise, which is on the one hand driven through new legislations (CRPD; New German Participation Act; enforcing of PWAL participation on the first job market); but also designed to spread new behaviors in society, i.e. acceptance of alternative providers of employment opportunities for PWAL aside from traditional sheltered workplaces. Within the now following scaling process, the described pattern will function as a grid for facilitating a self-reflection process within the PISKL team: By asking questions in accordance to the decision-making-path, researchers will support the social innovation to identify their own core and the conditions of the environment that should be targeted by the scaling process. By this, the described method excels the status of a pure analytical instrument by suggesting moderation questions and their order. It will guide a series of workshops – moderated by researchers and including stakeholders of the innovation giving entity as well as those of the innovation receiving environment - that aim at structuring the process of a) self-reflection of the social innovation (Weber et al.’s [6] steps I–III) and b) the macro-level perspective on the ecosystem of transferring this innovation (Weber et al.’s [6] steps IV–VII).

Through scaling, a new service is to be introduced in the targeted context, which requires a rich knowledge base of that context beforehand. It is not just about doubling a PIKSL laboratory, it is a process, where internal and external factors need to be thought through in the ways, they interact. This article proposes a tested instrument to guide through this scaling process and so contributes to the debate on social innovation, as well as digital inclusion.

Taking a look into the future, it is possible that Germany’s inclusiveness of the labor market might improve, as the new German participation Act, ratified at the end of 2016 and implemented also in reaction to the CRPD, holds further potential for alternative solutions and makes it easier for public-private partnerships to position themselves in the rehabilitation system.