Innovation, Quality and Evaluation

  • Andreas LangerEmail author
  • Johannes Eurich
  • Simon Güntner


Changes and new developments or ideas are rated as innovations if they result in an improvement (cf. Chapter 2, see also Howaldt and Schwarz 2010, p. 20; Phills et al. 2008, p. 10). However, the users might well see an innovation that appears to be more effective and efficient than the existing methods and procedures but increases the risks for the users to a disproportionate degree as a setback despite the related cost savings. Therefore, the question arises as to who is responsible for the assessment and what methods, instruments, criteria, and categories are used. In this context, challenges arise similar to those connected with the definition and measurement of quality. In fact, frequently the same instruments are used, which is plausible, since innovation processes often explicitly aim at improving quality. However, the adoption of methods of measurement and development of innovation and quality from other service fields, which can frequently be observed, is problematic if the sensitivity to the specifics in the social area is missing. For this very reason, the debate on the quality of social services provides an essential orientation for the assessment of innovation processes.


  1. Albus, Stefanie; Greschke, Heike; Klingler, Birte; Messmer, Heinz; Micheel, Heinz-Günter; Otto, Hans-Uwe; Polutta, Andreas (2010): Wirkungsorientierte Jugendhilfe Abschlussbericht der Evaluation des Bundesmodellprogramms „Qualifizierung der Hilfen zur Erziehung durch wirkungsorientierte Ausgestaltung der Leistungs-, Entgelt- und Qualitätsvereinbarungen nach §§ 78a ff SGB VIII“, (p. 1).
  2. Arnadóttir, Oddny Mjöll; Quinn, Gerard (Eds.) (2009): The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – European and Scandinavian Perspectives. Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Augusto, Juan Carlos; Huch, Michael; et al. (Eds.) (2012): Handbook of Ambient Assisted Living, Technology for Healthcare, Rehabilitation and Well-being. Amsterdam, Berlin, Tokio, Waschington DC: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  4. BAG WfbM/ xit - Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Werkstätten für Menschen mit Behinderung e.V. und xit GmbH (2014): „Mehr Wert als man denkt!" Studie berechnet Sozialbilanz von Werkstätten für Menschen mit Behinderung. accessible online at
  5. Böhm, Wolfgang; Wöhrle, Armin (2009): Einführung in das Qualitätsmanagement in der sozialen Arbeit. Qualität – Evaluation – Qualitätssicherung – Total Quality Management. 2nd, rev. edition, Brandenburg: Service-Agentur des HDL (Studienbrief / Hochschulverband.Google Scholar
  6. Bouchard, Marie J. (2006): L’innovation social en économie sociale. Montréal: Chaire de recherché du Canada en économie sociale, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
  7. Bund, Eva; Hubrich, David-Karl; Schmitz, Björn; Mildenberger, Georg; Krlev, Gorgi (2013): Blueprint of social innovation metrics – contributions to an understanding of opportunities and challenges of social innovation measurement. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  8. Halfar, Bernd (2009): Wirkungsorientiertes Controlling in der Sozialwirtschaft. In: SOZIALwirtschaft (5), 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawker, Chris; Frankland, Jane (2012): Theoretical trends and criteria for ‘innovative service practices’ in social services within the EU. Report. INNOSERV.Google Scholar
  10. Howaldt, Jürgen; Schwarz, Michael (2010): Social innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends. Aachen: RWTH Aachen University, Department of Information Management in Mech. Engineering.Google Scholar
  11. Kehl, Konstantin; Then, Volker; Münscher, Robert (2012): Social Return on Investment. auf dem Weg zu einem integrativen Ansatz der Wirkungsforschung. In: Helmut K. Anheier et al. (Ed.): Soziale Investitionen. (pp. 313–331). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Langer, Andreas (2006): Dienstleistungsorientiertes Sozialmanagement. Vertrauensgüter – Führungspersonen – Professionalisierung. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialpädagogik 4 (3), 276–304.Google Scholar
  13. Langer, Andreas (2013b): Professionell managen. Kompetenz, Wissen und Governance im Sozialen Management. Wiesbaden: Springer VS (Soziale Investitionen).Google Scholar
  14. Merchel, Joachim (2003): Zum Stand der Diskussion über Effizienz und Qualität in der Produktion sozialer Dienstleistungen. In: Michael Möller (Ed.): Effektivität und Qualität sozialer Dienstleistungen. ein Diskussionsbeitrag. (pp. 4–25). Kassel: Kassel University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Phills, James A.; Deiglmeier, Kriss; Miller, Dale T. (2008): Rediscovering Social Innovation. In: Stanford Social Innovation Review 6 (4), 34–43.Google Scholar
  16. Porter, Michael E.; Stern, Scott; Loria, Roberto Artavia (2013): Social progress report 2013.Google Scholar
  17. Preskill, Hallie; Gopal, Srik; Cook, Joelle; Mack, Catelyn (2014): Evaluating Complexity: Propositions for Improving Practice. Online verfügbar unter
  18. Schmitz, Björn; Krlev, Gorgi; Mildenberger, Georg; Bund, Eva; Hubrich, David (2013): Paving the Way to Measurement – A Blueprint for Social Innovation Metrics. A short guide to the research for policy makers. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme. Brussels: European Comission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  19. Sullivan, Hellen; Skelcher, Chris (2002): Working across boundaries: Collaboration in public services. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Then, Volker; Knust, Rüdiger; Stahlschmidt, Stephan (2014): Wirkungsmessung in der freien Wohlfahrt. In: Theorie und Praxis der Sozialen Arbeit (6), 422–427Google Scholar
  21. Thomas, Paul; Palfrey, Colin (1996): Evaluation: Stakeholder-focussed criteria. In: Social Policy and Administration 30(2),125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Langer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johannes Eurich
    • 2
  • Simon Güntner
    • 3
  1. 1.Department Soziale ArbeitHAW HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Diakoniewissenschaftliches InstitutUniversität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Fakultät Architektur und RaumplanungTU WienWienAustria

Personalised recommendations