The Monitoring of Social Innovation Projects: An Integrated Approach

  • M. F. NoreseEmail author
  • F. Barbiero
  • L. Corazza
  • L. Sacco
Part of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making book series (MCDM)


When the Municipality of Turin first decided to invest in social innovation, a public program and a network of partners were created, and a procedure to support social innovation start-ups was developed, and applied for the first time in 2014. After selection and funding of several young social entrepreneur projects, the Municipality activated a monitoring process. Different methodological approaches, including cognitive mapping, actor network analysis and multicriteria analysis, have been combined to analyse the behaviour of these start-ups and to evaluate whether they would address the social needs of their specific fields, and develop business projects as part of an inclusive and sustainable economy. Each element of this analysis has been proposed and discussed in relation to the monitoring and decision processes. The adopted multi-methodology and its results are here presented as a proposal for new models, metrics and methods for the social economy.


Multicriteria models and methods Cognitive mapping Actor network analysis Social innovation 


  1. Bana e Costa, C. A. (2001). The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to support the search for less conflicting policy options in a multi-actor context: Case study. Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, 10, 111–125.Google Scholar
  2. European Commission. (2013). Guide to social innovation. EU Commission, Brussels.
  3. Figueira, J., Mousseau, V., & Roy, B. (2005). ELECTRE methods. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 133–162). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Genard, J.-L., & Pirlot, M. (2002). Multi-criteria decision-aid in a philosophical perspective. In D. Boyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagrèze, P. Perny, R. Slowinski, D. Vanderpooten, & P. H. Vincke (Eds.), Aiding decisions with multiple criteria: Essays in honour of Bernard Roy (pp. 89–117). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hermans, L. M., & Thissen, W. A. H. (2009). Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysists. European Journal of Operational Research, 196, 808–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Law, J. (2007). Actor network theory and material semiotics. Indiana Law Journal, 35, 113–139.Google Scholar
  7. Merad, M., Dechy, N., Serir, L., Grabisch, M., & Marcel, F. (2013). Using a multicriteria decision aid methodology to implement sustainable development principles within an Organization. European Journal of Operational Research, 224(3), 603–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Norese, M. F. (2009). A multi-criteria decision aiding system to support monitoring in a public administration. International Journal of Decision Support System Technology, 1(4), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Norese, M. F. (2010). How to support decisions and guarantee robustness in Multi Criteria Decision Aid when the preference system is not “accessible”. In C. Zopounidis, M. Doumpos, N. F. Matsatsinis, & E. Grigoroudis (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision aiding (pp. 1–16). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Norese, M. F., & Torta, V. (2014). A decision support system in order to facilitate new financing actions in the public sector. Territorio Italia, 2, 85–100.Google Scholar
  11. Norese, M. F., & Salassa, F. (2014). Structuring fragmented knowledge: A case study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(4), 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Norese, M. F. (2016a). A model-based process to improve robustness in multi criteria decision aiding interventions. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 23(5–6), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Norese, M. F. (2016b). Decision aid in public administration: From evidence-based decision making to organizational learning. In C. Zopounidis & M. Doumpos (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making: Applications in management and engineering (pp. 1–29). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Norese, M. F., Mustafa, A., & Scarelli A. (2016). New frontiers for MCDA: From several indicators to structured models and decision aid processes. Newsletter of the European Working Group “Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding”, 3(34), Fall 2016, 1–8.Google Scholar
  15. Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (Eds.). (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Roy, B. (1990). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods, In: C. A. Bana e Costa (Ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 155–184). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roy, B., & Bertier, P. (1973). La methode ELECTRE II—une application au media-planning. In M. Ross (Ed.), OR’72 (pp. 291–302). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  19. Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide multicritère à la décision: mèthodes et cas. Collection Gestion, Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  20. Tsoukias, A., Montibeller, G., Lucertini, G., & Belton, V. (2013). Policy analytics: An agenda for research and practice. EURO Journal Decision Processes, 1, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yu, W. (1992). ELECTRE TRI: Aspects mèthodologiques et manuel d’utilization. Document du LAMSADE n°74 LAMSADE Université Paris-Dauphine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. F. Norese
    • 1
    Email author
  • F. Barbiero
    • 2
  • L. Corazza
    • 3
  • L. Sacco
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Management and Production EngineeringPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Municipality of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.Department of ManagementUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly
  4. 4.UnioncoopTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations