One of the key messages that emerged from Ezio Manzini's masterclass a few weeks ago for me was the important notion that 20th Century determinants of success - upscaling in order to grow in dimension and magnitude - are potentially no longer relevant, and at least shouldn't be the measures taken forward and emulated by the social innovation sector. It's all too easy to be successful with a small pilot idea, and to then assume that the only way forward is world domination! I believe that when this happens the quality of the innovation and service being provided is diluted by the desire for visibility and success as measured by size.

Instead Ezio's message heralded a new mantra of 'replicating' and 'synergising', which still allows for the maximum impact of an organisation to be achieved without it spreading too thinly on the ground. Instead this is a model about partnerships, synergies and perhaps 'franchising' social innovation to meet the needs of specific communities. As examples of organisations that have got this blend right, think of Freecycle and Craigslist, which provide a platform at an international level, but allow localised groups to adopt and drive the momentum at that level.

With this message in mind, Ezio asked the masterclass participants to think about local efforts of social innovation and determine where the driving force was top-down or bottom-up. With examples like GoGet car share and the project to revitalise Sydney's laneways, we saw flip-sides of a coin where one can only go so far without the help of the other: GoGet began as a local effort known as the Glebe carshaing group, but without the support of City of Sydney they may not have achieved the critical mass they needed, suffering the same fate as they did when put up against an unsupportive Brisbane City Council. The Laneways Project, on the other hand, was the vision of City of Sydney, but without the support of local art practitioners and an interested community, it may have gone un-noticed.

Both of these are examples of a successful top-down, bottom-up partnership, but there are far too many tales of fractured relationships and obstructive behaviour for social innovation in Australia to really fly. Perhaps we need a landscape redesign before we can begin to see the kind of results we all desire? How can we poke some holes in the risk-averse walls of our society in order to let the brave, and somewhat irrational, ideas through - the real game-changing innovation? How can the next Unreasonable Institute, Kickstarter, Kiva and Feast on Good originate from our country? What about the next Zimride, Zopa or NeighborGoods?

To design this landscape, it will take a culture of experimentation, of supporting a good idea, of awakening venture capitalists to the richness of social innovation and its potential.

Or perhaps because of the development of organisations in our country like those mentioned above, the design of our landscape will flourish to support the future growth of social innovation.