At DDC – Danish Design Center, we are committed to addressing complex and systemic societal challenges through design based on mission-driven innovation. Working closely with foundations, companies, public institutions, and non-governmental organizations, we work to solve the complex and systemic problems related to, e.g., the increasing lack of well-being among young people, the circular transition in our society, and demographic development. We also work with various public organizations to build capacity, mobilize ecosystems, and provide direction within several areas of the Danish welfare society.

We see mission-driven innovation as a crucial approach to moving from identifying complex, systemic problems to achieving real and actual impact experienced by citizens, businesses, and institutions in our society.

Missions can be defined as:

• Specific, long-term, time-bound goals with a particular focus on creating positive value for society and citizens
• Meaningful, ambitious, visionary images of the preferred future that stimulate our collective imagination
• Relevant to many different stakeholders, inviting and engaging
• Cross-sector and interdisciplinary: missions transcend the individual organization’s position within the sector, its key competencies, and what traditionally influences decision-making
• Top-down and bottom-up: Involving the political level as well as administrations, public actors, businesses, research, civil society, and citizens
• Realized through a portfolio of innovative interventions (projects, efforts, services, training, communication, etc.).

Innovation turned upside down

At first glance, mission-driven innovation may seem at odds with traditional innovation because this approach turns familiar processes, workflows, and logic on their head:

Model 3: Traditional innovation vs. mission-oriented innovation – inspired by Mariana Mazzucato 

Building on and extending Mazzucato’s model for establishing and managing missions, there have been exciting new developments in mission-driven innovation in recent years, both in Denmark and across the Nordic region. Inspired by Mazzucato’s ground-breaking work, many organizations are experimenting with new ways of doing things.

For example, the Swedish innovation fund Vinnova has for several years worked to ensure that all Swedish children have equal access to healthy and nutritious school meals. This extensive mission encompasses a wide range of aspects – from imparting knowledge about food and food culture to streamlining food production and logistics, combating food waste, and improving conditions for farmers producing sustainable food.

The wild and complex problems that we all are increasingly aware of and affected by – such as the recruitment crisis, lack of well-being in the labor market, and the demographic composition of our society – are indeed complex and particularly wicked. And perhaps of a slightly different character than the incredible moon mission that succeeded in 1969. It was complicated but not complex or wicked.

Today, we are all increasingly aware of and affected by complex, wicked problems. Whether it is the ongoing recruitment crisis, problems with well-being in the workplace, or the changing demographic makeup of our society, these problems are indeed complex and wicked. These problems are indeed different from the historic mission accomplished in 1969, which was complex but not wicked.

However, the question arises: Can we work with the “wicked problems” in a mission-oriented way? Problems that cannot be defined as either/or – and problems that don’t have clearly defined goals and outcomes. Yes, we can!

The moon landing was a mission focused on a specific event and was considered complete when Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface. Systemic problems, however, are different. They don’t go away, and we must acknowledge that we may never fully solve them.

One example is our work with the Partnership for Radical Innovation of The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS) in Norway. We are working with them to explore how they use a mission-driven approach to create better transitions from youth to young adulthood for people in vulnerable positions. Despite numerous well-intentioned and concrete measures, the scale of the problem has not changed significantly over the past 30 years.

Services and interventions alone have not been able to bring about the desired impact. That is partly due to the systemic structures, which lead to unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive transitions. In addition, the systems’ perception of these problems and their solutions have been quite one-dimensional. Also, there has been a lack of attention on how these problems and their interrelationships constantly evolve and change in form, manifestation, and character.

Change is inevitable. Thus, we must continuously learn about how challenges change and evolve. Also, we have to be willing to change our goals and indicators as we learn and get smarter. We must incorporate continuous learning loops to ensure we acquire knowledge and experience from individual initiatives and at the portfolio level. It’s key to note when we intervene with systems, they change in character. The indicators of success within our mission will do the same.

A powerful example of a proactive approach to mission-driven innovation at DDC is the Learning Forward model. The model accommodates the complexity and steers clear of oversimplifying the experimental and trial-and-error aspects of mission work. It recognizes that different initiatives should be evaluated on various parameters and paces and promotes cross-learning within the mission portfolio.

Each project within the mission portfolio contributes to changing the nature of the problem and bringing about positive change. Therefore, we place more emphasis on the overall impact of the mission portfolio as a whole than on demonstrating direct and causal relationships between cause and effect within single initiatives.

That means we should invest more in learning, particularly collective learning within the mission, rather than just reaching predefined milestones within our initiatives. ‘Learning Forward’ is a framework that allows us to intensify our focus on the many diverse aspects and objectives of our mission work without constant evaluation. We should be able to learn at different paces while staying alert about when it might be necessary to mobilize additional mission stakeholders.

The closer we are to a particular initiative, the faster we should learn from it, ensuring necessary adjustments, scaling, or possible termination.

1. Learning from our actions and making necessary adjustments should be part of our routine practice without initiating extensive processes. This manifests through individual initiatives and calls for work processes that promote learning over mere execution.
2. Changing our approach, learning from it, and eventually modifying it is not meant to happen at the same pace. This could potentially change the entire basis of our actions. At DDC, for example, our efforts would have a very different character if design were not part of our DNA. Instead, we should incorporate a variety of approaches to mission work, as this will lead to a broader spread of initiatives.
3. If we change the course of our strategy, it will (naturally) affect a broader spectrum of the mission portfolio. For example, changing the principles in Vorby would be a significant strategic shift. If we, for instance, replaced the principle of focusing on prevention with a focus on treatment, the mission direction would take a substantially different approach, resulting in entirely distinct initiatives.
4. Reframing the purpose affects everything that happens within the mission. The purpose itself is deeply value-based. Thus, the goal is not to be renegotiated frequently. However, as we gain new insights and expand our understanding of the problem, it becomes essential to make room for renegotiation, particularly when specific evidence suggests that the overarching purpose needs to change.

Beyond changes at the portfolio level, we should also allow for the possibility of terminating or replacing initiatives or actors that aren’t adding value to the mission. While this seems logical, it can lead to conflicts, as it may involve closing research projects, reallocating funds between projects, or changing the partner group. Thus, learning also becomes an integral part of a mission-oriented management model, requiring a significantly different approach from the people and organizations involved in the mission than traditional management models.

Both UNDP and the Centre for Public Impact offer valuable insights into how to demonstrate learning across a portfolio.