SI initiatives often originate in multiple individuals noticing an institutional deficit and are defined as “a collective of people working on ideas, objects or activities that are socially innovative, and a SI network is a network of such initiatives” (Haxeltine et. al 2017, p.6). Through collaboration, SI initiatives create spaces that provide opportunities to grow a collective identity, including values, sharing of knowledge and practices; with strong collective identities SI initiatives can even be considered social actors (ibid., p.12). The project starts with a focus on SI labs as a specific formation of SI initiatives and will widen the scope to other formations. SI labs are semi-autonomous organizational forms, which initiate new solutions (Gryszkiewicz et al. 2016), by providing a methodically pre-structured framework to foster opportunities for social entre- and intrapreneurs. Innovation formats, like SI-labs, close previous gaps in the innovation structure in home care, due to personnel and financial constraints, by innovating social service solutions for ageing care dependent people. They aim on challenging predominant path dependencies in care provision, using the intersectoral governance of welfare regimes to explore new opportunities through hybrid cooperation structures. Within this context, we will relate our research with studies on en- and disabling factors for innovative solutions for the elderly in different welfare regimes (wilcoproject.eu). Our first sample of SI initiatives, the D-Care Labs project, has established nine regional SI labs in the Danube region in three years, based on identified social needs in home care. The paper will present findings from the first DCare Labs phase and will describe the forms of relations among SI initatives.

Freire, K., Sangiorgi, D. (2010): Service Design and healthcare innovation: From consumption to co-production and co-creation. In: Nordic Service Design Conference, Linkoping, Sweden, 1-11 Geels, F. et al. (2016): The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy 45:4, 896-913. Geels, F. (2002): Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31, 1257–1274. Gryszkiewicz, L., Lykourentzou, I., Toivonen, T. (2016): Innovation Labs: Leveraging Openness for Radical Innovaiton. Journal of Innovation Management 4, 4, 68-97 Haxeltine, A., et al. (2017), “Building a middle-range theory of Transformative Social Innovation; theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses”, Methodological challenges in Social Innovation workshop, February 9th 2017, Brussels (BE)