The Daily Entrepreneur: Critique, Collaboration, and Case Western

by Nathaniel Whittemore · 2009-02-16 19:47:00 UTC
Topics:

Robert Fabricant of frog design speaking at Pop!Tech (via Pop!Tech)

After a quick Clinton Global Initiative University inspired break, I'm back to sharing the best links of social innovation and entrepreneurship. Today's stories were again diverse and without any real theme.

  • Social Entrepreneurialism at the Public Trough: Rick Cohen of the Nonprofit Quarterly writes about how some social entrepreneurs have been particularly successful at getting government grants. The tone of the article is that its not always innovation but connections that are rewarded. I think its an important critique, but I'm not sure if the government's embrace of Teach for America is the best evidence. Still, all skepticism has a place on this blog so check it out and see what you think.

  • The Innovator's Dilemma: Robert Fabricant of frog design writes a great post about the difference between innovation and collaboration. Innovation is something that can still be owned, making it in some ways less scary than collaboration for companies. A thoughtful and important post. (And congrats to frog design for being listed as one of Fast Company's Ten Most Innovative Design firms - in part honoring their work to create an accessible self-testing kit for HIV/AIDS patients)

  • Case Western Receives $7.5 Million Commitment for Sustainable Enterprise Initiatives: Case Western receives a big donation to support sustainable enterprise programming at the Weatherhead School of Management.

Nathaniel Whittemore is the founder of Assetmap. Previously he was the founding director of the Northwestern University Center for Global Engagement.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Who Will Direct the White House Office of Social Innovation?
NEXT STORY:
Facing Forward: The End of the Social Entrepreneurship Blog on Change.org

COMMENTS (0)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.