Josep Maria Solé is a lawyer and the director of the Support-Girona Foundation. He also serves as a trustee and president of the Social Council of the Guttmann Institute Foundation, vice president of the DRISSA Foundation, and a member of the board of the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD), among other roles. Since 2024, he has been president of the iSocial Foundation, succeeding Montse Cervera. We spoke with him to share his vision for the foundation and the need for innovation in the social sector

What does it mean to you to take on the presidency of a foundation whose mission is to promote social innovation?

As I see it, the iSocial Foundation has always been a cooperative project of the organizations that make it up. Taking on the presidency is simply fulfilling a role that someone has to take on. My goal as president is to maximize the participation of the talent present in all the entities that form part of iSocial’s ecosystem. But I would also like to reach out to other organizations, to parts of the social sector that we have not yet been able to engage. Only through alliances will we grow. Having talent and great ideas is not enough; alliances are what enable ideas to take shape and become reality. In this sense, a single person can achieve little unless they can bring together many wills. I believe this is the main purpose of the role I now assume.

Why is it important to innovate in the social sector?

It is especially important to foster an innovative mindset and ensure that innovation reaches both direct intervention with the individuals and groups in need—where the social sector realizes its mission and values—and the ways in which we organize the mechanisms that enable this intervention. These mechanisms need to be rethought to have a more significant and transformative impact on people’s lives and society as a whole.

What do you mean by introducing innovation in the organization?

This is an area where we lag quite behind other sectors, such as healthcare, where management is given intrinsic value, and no one takes on management roles solely based on practice. The healthcare sector is acutely aware that it is the custodian of significant social efforts—in terms of budgets, resources, etc.—and therefore must be managed with sound management principles. In the social sector, however, many people still end up in leadership or strategic roles without planning for it or receiving the necessary training to fulfill these roles effectively.

We need innovation to become part of how organizations are managed. This does not mean, of course, abandoning the sector’s social values. In other sectors, it’s less complicated; when a solution that adds value is found, it is shared and presented at conferences, for example. In our field, this tradition is weaker, and much of the activity revolves around revisiting the same problems. There’s a lack of real debate on how to advance and improve. Innovation doesn’t always mean disruption, though it sometimes does.

Looking back, what are the main achievements of the iSocial Foundation in its six years of existence?

First and foremost, consolidating its existence and building a minimal organizational structure that can now take on more ambitious projects. In the beginning, all of us involved invested resources and ideas, but we primarily relied on the human resource of one of the founders, the current director, Toni Codina. Today, Toni Codina is joined by other talented individuals, which allows us to realize more projects. As a result, ideas that emerge within the iSocial ecosystem now have much greater potential to be implemented, tested, and eventually scaled. This seemed like a distant goal at the beginning.

What role does the iSocial Foundation play within the social innovation ecosystem in Catalonia and Europe?

We are just one part of the ecosystem; we cannot claim to have arrived and transformed the sector’s perspective. However, I do think we represent a relatively unique piece. There aren’t many organizations where such a wide array of independent intervention organizations come together without being structured as a sector or federation, or depending on an administration or government. The entities involved in iSocial participate voluntarily, and this freedom and autonomy in shaping the foundation’s action lines are incredibly valuable.

That said, as I mentioned earlier, other players exist, and perhaps the next step is to work with them and bring them into the fold to create an ecosystem that permeates the entire sector and improves how we operate.

How do you assess the current state of the social sector?

We are in a challenging moment. Europe, and the world at large, are heading toward a complex geopolitical landscape where some of the values that have historically inspired social policies—especially in Europe—are being questioned. While this isn’t always explicitly acknowledged, some of the proposals being presented to and voted on by the public, sometimes with significant support, lack the solidarity and cohesion the social sector requires to support those in need. The ideas gaining ground today are not always aligned with the vision of an inclusive society where everyone can participate without feeling excluded. There’s a growing individualistic trend, born of a misunderstood libealism, that dehumanizes the weak—those without the resources to compete. From the social sector, we rmust act as a counterweight to prevent this perspective from prevailing. We need to prioritize the collective good, society as a whole, and especially those most marginalized.

Europe should be a stronghold for these principles. Many other regions have not embraced the welfare state or the idea of rebalancing society through contributions from the more privileged to reduce the disparities faced by the less fortunate. The social sector must innovate to demonstrate that it can operate effectively, efficiently manage resources, and simultaneously drive transformation and create value for society. This is not easy because it requires a clear purpose behind every action. Too often, the purpose is tactical rather than strategic, and this is the perspective we now need.

What other challenges does the third social sector face?

The social sector will need to adapt to an inevitable social change: the progressive increase of the elderly population—some of whom will require support—within society as a whole. This is an unavoidable factor and can elicit various responses, some of which, of course, are not aligned with the interests of the social sector. One such response is the complete commodification of the support and care sector, focusing solely on cost-efficiency and the bare minimum of needs coverage. The social sector must champion human rights values that ensure these supports and care services are inclusive and involve the participation of those who receive them, leaving no one behind or relegating those with fewer resources to second-class citizenship. In this regard, we face a challenge because the commercial sector tends to lower prices and industrialize its products, saying, “We’ll do it cheaper.” I support industrializing processes that lack added value, such as bureaucracy, but only to the extent that it allows us to allocate more resources to humanize services, enabling a stronger focus on human relationships, which ultimately is what improves everyone’s quality of life. I believe this should be the goal of the social sector.

Many of the projects at the iSocial Foundation have been driven by circumstancial funding, such as Next Generation funds, which were established in response to the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond this funding, what is the Foundation’s main challenge in securing financing to continue new projects?

The challenge lies in raising awareness among society at large, but especially within the political sector and governments, about the need for the social sector to undergo a complete rethinking, as it currently does not meet human rights standards. For example, a significant part of the social sector still provides support based on institutionalization—offering the same service to a group of people regardless of their specific individual needs. Much of the spending on residential care or day services for groups such as the elderly or people with disabilities is still rooted in this approach. We fail to realize that this model, from a strictly human rights perspective, is outdated. Each person should be offered opportunities to live their life fully, independently, and as part of the community while receiving the individual support they need, not merely collective solutions. This transformation has not even been a priority in the use of funds like the Next Generation funds, which have often reinforced institutional perspectives.

In what way?

In many cases, for instance, they have been used to build residential spaces, which can be an option but unfortunately often become the only option for many individuals. I hope that this line of thought on supporting full lives continues to drive innovation and that iSocial has a space to introduce new ideas and projects. I can’t conceive of a future where, even if the Next Generation funding ends or new fiscal austerity policies emerge, we do not continue to advance the ideas of individualization and personalization of supports and care, the right to choose how one wants to live, and, if one wishes to remain in their usual environment, ensuring the delivery of adequate and sufficient support mechanisms. We are still far from being able to offer this, and the integration of new technologies to make some of these processes more efficient is still in its infancy. We also need to rethink the organization of resources. When we acquire more resources, we often replicate the same models we already had instead of considering whether everything should be organized differently.

What role should public institutions play in relation to social innovation?

First and foremost, they should stop creating barriers, and second, they should promote it. They should seek evidence of what works, and to have such evidence, things need to be tested. Today, there is an exaggerated fear of testing. Without trying new approaches, we cannot rule out options that are not suitable. Often, we stick with traditional methods because they are familiar, and we hesitate to try new proposals for intervention, resource organization, or community energy mobilization because these alternatives, not having been tested, lack evidence and therefore do not receive public funding. To innovate, one must dare to try, and daring must include accepting the risk of making mistakes. The current trend is the opposite; we often amplify the errors of things that worked or seemed to work in the past, even if they have not been revalidated in a modern and substantiated way. These methods may no longer work, yet we continue to allocate public resources to them. Without a spark of curiosity and courage to take risks, we will keep doing the same things over and over, and there is no need to innovate if that is the case.

How can we foster productive dialogue among the various stakeholders in social innovation?

By establishing multiple mechanisms for collaboration among all the system’s stakeholders. It should be much easier for individuals to express their feelings about the social interventions they receive: what they find lacking, what works for them, and what doesn’t. Often, these individuals are not taken into account, particularly if they struggle to articulate what they want or dislike. Therefore, support in decision-making or communication of their own will is an area where innovation is undoubtedly needed. It also often happens that the people being supported cannot contribute valuable feedback on potential alternatives because they have not been offered those alternatives and are unaware of them.

Additionally, all stakeholders must be involved, including the vast workforce entering the social sector, which is often highly precarious. The perspective must also be broadened to include all kinds of organizations in a transversal manner, without any preconceived notions—except for one fundamental principle: respect for human rights. Any entity advocating positions that are not aligned with a human rights perspective should be gradually excluded from the system.

What do you think is the main obstacle to social innovation in the third sector, and how can we overcome it?

The obstacle is fear, and the solution lies in courage: the courage to try different approaches and perspectives. Courage might mean genuinely supporting individuals’ autonomy rather than acting as the great overseers of risk prevention. It means letting people make their own decisions and supporting them in that process without judgment, even if their choices are not ones we would make ourselves. Currently, the system tends to prevent individuals from realizing decisions we disagree with. This happens across the board—from the elderly to people with disabilities, to those with mental health issues, and beyond. We have a strong aversion to risk, both in interventions and in the testing and trialing of innovative policies. To determine if these policies work, we need a degree of bravery, and this ultimately comes down to attitude.

Willy Allègre is an engineer and the driving force behind the Rehab-Lab european network, a community of over 50 Fab Labs that enable the 3D production of functional aids for people with motor disabilities. At iSocial, we interviewed him regarding the Rehab-Lab Cat project, which will extend the initiative to Catalonia.

How did the idea for Rehab-Lab come about?

Rehab-Lab started in 2016 at the Kerpap rehabilitation center in Brittany. The idea stemmed from a service offered there called the “technological assistance lab.” The team of engineers working there saw great potential in 3D printing to create personalized technical aids, so we decided to involve a few occupational therapists and patients, showing them what could be done. The results were well-received, and we launched a series of workshops where creativity was key. We realized that something occupational therapists were already doing—handcrafting technical aids—could be done through digital fabrication and 3D printing, which offered many advantages. We decided to create a Fab Lab space integrated within the care structure at our facilities to allow any patient in our center to create their own technical aids, of course with assistance.

What need does this initiative address?

It primarily addresses the needs of patients with motor disabilities who have difficulty grasping or performing precise movements with their hands, such as holding a fork, eating independently, picking up a glass, or operating the joystick on their electric wheelchair. It also meets the needs of occupational therapy professionals who can improve the process of creating custom technical aids when no existing products on the market meet the patient’s specific needs. Additionally, it responds to the needs of care or medical-social institutions by enabling patients to be, as much as possible, active participants in their rehabilitation and life projects. Rehab-Lab gives them the opportunity to take charge of their own technical support, creating objects tailored to the activities they will need to perform in their new situation.

What was the learning process like for incorporating 3D printing into your center and creating the Rehab-Lab network?

As I mentioned, the first Rehab-Lab was established at Kerpap in 2016, and we immediately started spreading the word about the project, which was quite innovative at the time. Many professionals contacted us, interested in implementing a similar model, and these requests allowed us to develop a training pathway. Today, in France, there is a university degree in 3D printing specifically for the healthcare or social care sectors, where we train various health professionals. It’s quite innovative, even across Europe, to have a degree focused on 3D printing applied to healthcare or disability. This is our specialty.

What do these training programs involve?

What’s particularly innovative about our approach is that we haven’t created a purely technical training program. While there is significant technical learning involved, such as how to create an object, break it down into different geometric shapes, and design it for 3D printing, we also focus on pedagogy related to organization. Our experience has shown that projects fail when a center’s management buys a 3D printer and simply tells the occupational therapist to use it for creating functional aids. That doesn’t work because you have to think about organization, patient flow, and the roles each person will play. We quickly realized this and integrated this aspect into our training, teaching people how to understand and define the project.

There’s a clear intent in your project to share the knowledge gained.

Yes, another important lesson we’ve learned is how to harness the benefits of 3D printing by sharing not only the technical aids we’ve created but also by accessing aids made by others. This saves time and offers new ideas for creating aids for our own patients. That’s the big advantage of the digital revolution behind all this. Before, occupational therapists would create functional adaptations using thermoformed plastic, which had to be heated to shape it. The adaptations were unique, and to make another one, you had to repeat the whole process. Now, thanks to digital technology, a technical aid model can be shared and recreated to meet the needs of other professionals. We can consult a database to see what already exists before creating a new aid for someone.

What are the advantages of 3D printing compared to previous materials like plastic or wood?

First, from a technical standpoint, as I mentioned, digital manufacturing offers advantages over traditional manufacturing methods. The benefits are in the adaptability and ease of use. If I want to create an object, I can take an existing 3D model and easily adjust its dimensions. This way, we don’t start from scratch, but from a pre-existing model. Another benefit is the ability to reproduce the object. When a technical aid is created, the patient receives both the object and the digital file. If the object breaks, they still have the file and can request an exact copy from a local Fab Lab or 3D printing service without needing to reconnect with the organization that initially made the object. Other advantages include reduced costs, faster production, and the ability to adjust the weight of the aid. Additionally, there’s a broader benefit beyond the technical aspects—making object creation accessible to people who may not have the physical ability to manipulate materials like wood or plastic to create custom adaptations.

Then there’s also the personalization…

Exactly. The ability to choose the color, material, and design is significant for helping individuals feel more connected to their technical aids, which in turn empowers them in the face of their disability. In the case of children, for example, customized designs can help diminish the visibility of the disability and make the aid more appealing. From a social standpoint, this encourages users to get involved in the design of their own technical aids.

Can you give us an example?

At the Rehab Lab in Kerpap, the first person to create a technical aid was named Jean-Christophe. Among other things, Jean-Christophe is a DJ and a quadriplegic. For his DJ activities, he uses a stem that he holds in his mouth to press the buttons on his mixing table, and he can also control a computer with head movements. Jean-Christophe wanted to replace the standard buttons on the mixing table with 3D-printed ones that had a hole where he could better fit the mouthpiece, allowing him to control them more easily. He even chose glow-in-the-dark material so he could see them at night.

I often share this example because, although it’s a rather unique case—not many quadriplegic patients are DJs—it demonstrates the high level of user participation that we strive for.

This collaborative process is central to the Rehab-Lab project.

Yes. For me, Rehab-Lab is less of a technical project and more of a project about rethinking the user’s role. The key aspect is that the person, whether they’re a patient, resident, etc., is involved at the highest level, even in the co-design process. The result is tangible: a physical object born from an idea, from the exchange of ideas among different stakeholders, and everyone quickly understands what the object is for.

How does the co-creation process of functional aids work between patients, occupational therapists, and technicians?

In the Rehab-Lab model, this tripartite approach is essential. On one side, there’s the patient, who is the project leader in creating their technical aid since they’re the expert on their disability. But the patient needs support from others with a broader view. The second person is the occupational therapist or healthcare professional, who can contribute their clinical experience and expertise. The therapist is mainly involved in expressing the needs, identifying whether a custom technical aid is required based on what’s already available on the market, and then evaluating the object after it’s created to see if any modifications are needed. Thirdly, there’s the technical specialist who supports the user with 3D printing, from conception to manufacturing and maintenance. If there are technical issues (which are common), the technician must resolve them and teach patients how to use 3D printing software.

Do all Rehab-Labs need to have an engineer in this role of technical advisor?

No, most Rehab-Labs haven’t had the opportunity, due to funding reasons or otherwise, to hire an engineer. But there are many other ways to have these technical advisors. They can be occupational therapists who have been trained in 3D printing and take on this role to support other occupational therapists. They could also be engineering or university students doing internships, or occupational therapy students who are increasingly interested in this area. In some cases, former patients who have created their own assistive devices and have been trained can also help other patients.

I imagine that for occupational therapists, this co-creation process is also interesting.

Yes, and maybe it’s worth mentioning an additional advantage of 3D printing, which is that the Rehab-Lab space is a mediation space; that is, beyond creating a functional assistive device, it’s a space where occupational therapists can work, first observing, before doing anything, what the patient needs when using a computer—whether they use a joystick, what hand movements they make, whether they need help pressing keys, and so on. These are all useful observations. They can also work on cognitive functions through spatial orientation on the computer, memory aspects… In short, there’s a lot at play in this space beyond just creating a functional assistive device for the user.

What led you to create the Rehab-Lab community, and how has it evolved over time?

Over time, we aimed to spread the initiative and support professionals who wanted to implement assistive device creation through 3D printing. From the start, we saw the value in sharing content and assistive devices as freely as possible. This is why the initiative expanded, first regionally, then nationally, and now at the European level through two international projects. Today, there are nearly 50 Rehab-Labs, mainly in France but also in other countries.

The goal of creating the Rehab-Lab community is to allow people to find solutions to their needs when there are no products available on the market. The community helps maximize our impact. Currently, we’ve taken on the role of animating this community: sharing experiences, asking beneficiaries for feedback, etc. We also offer services, mainly training and support for organizations to implement these types of activities. It’s a task that requires time and faces funding challenges.

Is funding a challenge?

Yes, clearly, there are significant challenges related to the business model, especially around community animation. That’s why, in 2024, we had to introduce a paid membership option for the network. Our philosophy is to maintain free membership, but now we also have this second level of membership that helps contribute financially to the project’s sustainability. This is important to continue the work we’re doing, and I think most Rehab-Lab members in France understand the value of contributing to ensure the initiative lasts. But extending this model to the broader European network will be a challenge.

What other challenges are you facing now?

Another challenge involves the regulations around medical devices, which is a European regulation affecting most personalized assistive devices for various disabilities. It applies across all European countries, so the good news is we all face the same restrictions. This regulation means that an assistive device that takes two hours to create might take two days or more to get to the patient because you need to fill out technical documentation explaining the printing parameters, quality management, etc. It’s not just a matter of time but also of workload. This is a challenge we need to address.

The good news is that digital fabrication allows us to trace our personalized assistive device creation more easily. We know the object, we can reproduce it, we know the materials used, we have the references… The 3D printer is also always the same. Before, with manually created assistive devices by occupational therapists, everything was more complicated. That’s a positive aspect, and what we’re doing now is applying best practices to streamline the process. But in any case, this will be a challenge for the next four or five years: demonstrating our good faith and rigorous compliance with European regulations, though adapted to the context of personalized assistive devices.

At the same time, as we expand the Rehab-Lab network, we have more strength to demonstrate what it means for a social or healthcare organization to create a “personalized assistive device.” We are more than 100 strong, making it easier to show the kind of activity we’re involved in. Asking us to produce such a large volume of documentation, with the same requirements as companies, is not viable.

Rehab-Lab is currently expanding to new countries. How is that process going?

When we considered how to spread our practices internationally, we realized that the role of the leader is key. The leader is responsible for spreading the concept in their country. We believe this is the best model because it allows for better cultural and linguistic adaptation, etc., and it’s also useful and interesting to share the network’s animation work. The Rehab-Lab Cat project is a great example. We’re doing this in Belgium as well, and there are organizations in other countries that are asking to take on this role to try and start spreading the Rehab-Lab project in their contexts.

What would you highlight about the process of implementing Rehab-Lab in Catalonia?

First of all, I’d like to take the opportunity to thank iSocial for the work they’re doing, which I’ve seen firsthand. At iSocial, you identified my initiative, had me participate in a webinar, and then decided to present the project to a call for proposals together with other organizations [Ampans, Guttmann, CIM-UPC, and Avinent], including us as partners. I really value this approach: recognizing an initiative that already exists and is well-developed, using it as a reference when creating your own project, while considering cultural and linguistic aspects, but connecting with what’s already out there so you’re not starting from scratch. I think this is a win-win strategy: the local network in Catalonia enriches the existing network, and at the same time, it will be strengthened. Plus, Rehab-Lab in Catalonia will be very useful in showing how things can be set up in a short period of time. So, I wanted to thank you for this opportunity, congratulate the project proposal behind it, and say that Rehab-Lab Cat has all the ingredients for success. And, of course, those who will benefit the most are the people who will be able to access the local Rehab-Lab and get effective services tailored to their needs

We speak with Victoria Mandefield, CEO of Solinum and creator of Soliguide, a digital search engine for resources or social organizations aimed to people in vulnerable situations. Thanks to the Solidigital project, Soliguide arrives in Catalonia and will integrate with Nidus and the French application Reconnect.

How did the idea of Soliguide come about?

The idea originated in France, stemming from my experience as a volunteer, where I often found myself providing inaccurate information. The social sector undergoes frequent changes, with high turnover among social workers, volunteers, and organizations opening and closing. This dynamic environment can make it challenging to navigate. Moreover, there are numerous stakeholders involved, including associations and public services, making the landscape somewhat chaotic. I needed access to updated, precise, and comprehensive information, which led me to create Soliguide. Initially, it was a small and limited project, but over time, it has evolved into something more professional.

And now Soliguide is reaching Catalonia. How do you view this expansion beyond the border?

I believe the main advantage of this expansion into Catalonia, compared to our experience in France, is the significant time savings. Currently, when we expand into new territories in France, the process is rapid; we know exactly what we’re doing, understand the methodologies, follow well-defined steps, and get the job done. Whereas initially, we were somewhat unsure of what we were doing, leading to a bit of chaos. Consequently, it took us a long time to see the social impact of Soliguide, to spread its reach, and to gather quality data. Now, it’s different. And that’s what I aim to bring to Catalonia and Spain: the ability to move faster to achieve a greater social impact. Of course, this will involve adapting to local realities because there will be things we don’t know and will discover, while other aspects will require modification, which will be an interesting exercise.

What challenges do you foresee Soliguide encountering in its deployment in Catalonia?

I think the beauty of it all lies in being surprised by certain things. Institutional relations are probably not the same in France and Spain. Culturally, they are two quite different countries. There won’t be the same realities. The type of migration present in Catalonia and France is different, even though there may be some similarities. And this is the great interest of a cross-border project: there will be bilateral exchanges that will allow us to better assist people.

You have a fundamentally technological background. How do you think technology can contribute to improving people’s living conditions and reducing inequality?

Precisely because I’m an engineer, people often expect me to have a very pro-technology stance, to say that it will solve all the world’s needs, when in fact I don’t believe that at all. Technology can be relevant in various aspects. Especially in terms of efficiency. In 2023, there were 3.7 million searches made in Soliguia. Those are significant numbers. When I compare it to when I was a volunteer, I think back then I would provide information one by one, and I could give an average of ten pieces of information over a few hours. In this case, technology allows us to have a much larger scale impact and make certain things more efficient that are not always rewarding. For social workers, for example, desperately searching for information, asking colleagues, making calls who knows where, searching through old files… these are not activities that have a great added value. And suddenly, if they can save this time, it’s time they gain for social work. This is one of the great impacts of Soliguide: it allows professionals to focus on human relationships, on social support, something that digital tools can never replace.

How do you measure the social impact of Soliguide?

The topic of social impact assessment is very important to me. We have already produced 3 reports in this regard. It’s relevant because obviously there are always anecdotes, and we see people whom Soliguide has helped access care, find assistance, etc. But that’s not enough. There needs to be a rigorous impact assessment that goes beyond anecdotes, meaning it should be quantitative. And then we see that the biggest impacts are the time saved for social workers and volunteers, better coordination among actors in the same territory, providing guidance with better quality data. There’s also a better relationship of trust between actors in the social sector and their beneficiaries. Previously, beneficiaries would ask for information and the people working in the sector would provide whatever they could, which wasn’t always the right information. Now, with Soliguide, they provide updated information, which builds more trust. We also know that Soliguide is very economically efficient for a territory. For every euro invested, there’s a return of €1.93 in savings because all that lost time, all that lost energy costs money.

How is the quality of the data collected in Soliguide reviewed?

This is the key aspect, and it’s not always given the attention it deserves. Often people think, “I’ll create a fantastic mapping, the application will have these features, those functionalities, and everything will go smoothly.” And they overlook the heart of the project: the data. It’s very, very difficult to have quality data. What we do is evaluate the currency of data for a territory to ensure it’s up to date. And we are very precise in this aspect. For example, if an organization closes during the summer, that will be reflected. We don’t just list the hours, but also which days they close, etc., because that’s important for people. And we also ensure that the information is complete. It’s good to know that there’s a food distribution point in a certain place, but if you don’t know exactly which public it’s aimed at, what documentation is required, if it’s saturated or not, or if you don’t have contact information, it’s not so useful.

It’s a work of detail…

We make a concerted effort to comprehensively cover each territory. If we were to include only two or three entities or structures from each territory in Soliguide, it wouldn’t be relevant. It’s important to collect as many as possible, and if possible, all the organizations that exist in a particular territory in order to better guide people.

And achieving this requires the human touch. There’s no substitute for it with technology. While we do run summer and winter update campaigns and strive to automate processes, ensuring the accuracy of information always involves making calls and confirming details. It’s a significant undertaking. Additionally, there’s a misconception that digital tools can operate independently, but that’s not the case; they require human oversight. This is why Soliguide always seeks partners to carry out the work on the ground.

One of the key strengths of the Solidigital project is cross-border collaboration. What advantages do you think this collaboration format brings?

There’s a fundamental reason why this cross-border collaboration is interesting, and it’s because these borders are highly permeable. Administratively, a border exists, but in reality, one can move from one side to the other, and many issues are shared across these boundaries. Cross-border cooperation allows us to collectively address the common problems we face, as well as exchange best practices, avoiding redundant efforts. What I find particularly compelling about this project is the concept of interconnection. In the social sector, we’ve lagged behind in adopting and developing technology and digital tools compared to the private sector. We are way behind compared to the private sector. However, for the last few years, the private sector has been heavily focused on the interconnection of tools. The era of creating monolithic, standalone tools is over. Developers now work to create tools that interconnect with other tools, which in turn connect with others, and so on. This approach has proven to be the most effective. And suddenly, it turns out that we’re not as far behind in the social sector: we simply need to prioritize interconnecting existing tools rather than seeking a singular and magical solution to all problems. This aspect underscores the significance of the Solidigital project: it represents a significant stride forward in the social sector, advancing the democratization of technology and the integration of technological tools.

An example of this interconnection, within the framework of the Solidigital project, is the integration of Soliguide with the Nidus tools in Catalonia and Reconnect in France. What benefits do you think this integration will bring?

I believe that what Soliguide will bring to Nidus and Reconnect is more added value for users. We’ve tested this in France on several occasions, such as with the app Entourage, and I think it will be the same with Nidus and Reconnect: for users, it will be fantastic to have a map from the Soliguide database, as they won’t have to search for the information they need in another application. And in our case, integration has an immense advantage, which is to increase our social impact. For example, we don’t have a communication strategy for the general public; we don’t address all citizens, but thanks to the interconnections we’ve been making, we reach users we never thought we’d reach.

How can the continuity of this project be ensured in the long term?

To ensure its long-term continuity, two key aspects come into play. Firstly, there’s the imperative of doing a good job: if you have a significant social impact, you become necessary. If you can objectively prove that your social impact evaluation indicators are excellent, things continue. This has been our experience across various regions. Secondly, there is the appropriation by institutional actors. Co-construction has many virtues. One of them is the ability to make better decisions, tailored to local realities. However, it also has the benefit of allowing people to take ownership of the project. And if they feel that the project is theirs, they are less likely to abandon it, and politicians and entities are more likely to invest in it, either with money or with human resources.

Do you think the social sector has changed in recent years?

It has changed, undoubtedly; in some ways for the better, in others for the worse, but I think we have participated, in any case, in a certain positive digitalization of the sector. I say “positive digitalization” because there has been another less positive one in the sense that, for example, now beneficiaries of social services are forced to do all the procedures online, without assistance, and that’s complicated. But technology can also be useful, and that’s what we’re working on.

Another contribution that has been made, and of which we have been part, is a certain form of collaboration. At the beginning, for example, when we talked about the involvement of the beneficiaries in social action, we felt a bit alone. It seems very obvious that in a social project, the opinions of those involved should be sought, but the truth is that a few years ago it was not a majority position. People were accompanied in their daily lives, yes, but there was the idea that their real needs were already known, which is not true. And I think that has changed, that it has been understood that the participation of those people involved must be included.

What role should politics play regarding poverty and social exclusion? Do you think technological innovation can help address these issues on the agenda?

What technology can bring, and what we try to bring in any case, is reliable data. We have more and more data and analyze them more. We can tell politicians: “Look, we have data confirming that there are so many food banks in this area, and that many of these banks are saturated; and according to the data, in this other area there are no resources. These are the data, do what you think is appropriate.” I still think there is a lack of reliable data on which to make reasoned decisions. Otherwise, it’s easy to fall into abstract political protest, which I experienced as a volunteer and which is very tiring and doesn’t contribute much. If we can change perspective, we can say: “Okay, here’s a problem, and it’s objective. We’re not saying it, the data are.” And from there we can work together to solve it. And I think that’s the role politicians of the future can have: working on problems from the root, beyond the ambitions of each organization. Identifying the problem and seeing what could be done to solve it before it arises.