1 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Management Advisory Committee Report 9 - ANNEX 1 Assessing Policies, Programs and Other Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector: International Case Studies Don Scott-Kemmis November 2009 The Challenge of Sustaining Innovation in the Public Sector Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 2 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Assessing Policies, Programs and Other Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector: International Case Studies Contents Summary A 3 Framework for Assessing Policies, Programs and Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector B. C. 6 Case Studies: B.1 United Kingdom 28 B.2 Canada 44 B.3 Singapore 60 B.4 Netherlands 68 Prior Research on Public Sector Innovation – References. 79 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 3 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Summary The factors that are driving the strong interest in innovation in the public sector are likely to increase. This will ensure that greater innovativeness in the public sector will remain a priority. These factors include the increasingly pervasive role of ICT, and the resulting transformative changes in organisation, services, culture and relationships, and social expectations regarding the quality of service delivery, openness, accountability and opportunities for participation in policy development. Another set of drivers arise from the rising importance of innovation (for competitiveness, sustainability, security etc) and the recognition of the importance of innovation in all aspects of industrial and social activity (ie in organisation, services, institutions, policies etc). A dynamic national innovation system requires a dynamic and innovative public sector. The primary purpose of this paper is to review the approaches to public sector innovation through case studies of four comparator countries: the UK; Canada; Netherlands; and, Singapore. Our focus is on: the extent to which improving innovation performance in the public sector is a goal; how that goal is being pursued; and, what has been achieved. While all of these countries have a history of innovation in the public sector, the focus on that dimension of performance is quite recent. There is a diverse range of case studies of public sector innovations and some surveys, but there is little systematic analysis. There are even fewer evaluations of the recent initiatives to raise innovation performance. The available information tends to be more normative than analytical and more descriptive than evaluative. The report prefaces the case studies with a discussion of the challenges of innovation, particularly in the public sector context. These include recognising that:  there are many types of innovation and different degrees of novelty and discontinuity - the innovation management systems that are appropriate for incremental innovation are unlikely to be effective for the much greater challenge of innovation involving higher levels of discontinuity with established structures and norms;  the innovation process involves mobilising a widening range of stakeholders, addressing an range of performance criteria, and driving the development of the innovation, along the path from conception to implementation;  an organisational capacity for innovation is embodied in individuals and in the structures, routines, culture and norms of an organisation – this capacity must be built through what is essentially a learning process, it is not simply a question of declaring new priorities;  the capabilities and processes that underpin the capacity for innovation are to a large extent organisation and context-specific, they have relevance and value in the context of the strategies of an organisation, and they are shaped by an organisation’s past strategies – ie the challenges it has addressed; Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 4 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies  the relationships between capabilities, processes, culture and strategy on the one hand, and the various mechanisms for their adaptation, upgrading and integration on the other, constitute an organisational innovation system - building robust innovation systems at the organisation level will be the foundation of public sector innovation, just as innovation systems at the firm level are the essential foundation of national innovation systems. Those challenges have significant implications for the development and implementation of measures to raise innovation. Innovation cannot be simply another objective added to the already demanding list of outcomes. It is a systemic challenge that will involve a process of change in organisations and their external relationships. Over recent years public sector agencies in many countries have become more innovative as a consequence of developing new approaches to service delivery or policy. Many have also developed initiatives to foster innovation as a goal in itself. Initiatives to promote or support innovation include:  central units, funds, or competitions at the public sector level that promote innovation or mobilise resources for specific innovations;  units or programs at the agency/department level that promote innovation or mobilise resources to support specific innovations;  measures at the overall public service level to build resources to support innovation through eg on-line resources, training, research, surveys etc;  measures at the overall public service level to develop external bases of support through external innovation support units or research and training programs as independent entities or in collaboration with eg universities;  measures to embed an orientation to innovation in strategies, audits, performance criteria, benchmarking, selection criteria etc. The paper provides examples of each of these types of initiatives and identifies key challenges for their implementation. The four case studies are organised in seven sections: the contextual, policy and organisational drivers for innovation in the public sector; the scope of innovative activity; the role of IT; the specific initiatives that are being used to promote innovation; the features of the public sector context in the case study country the outcomes of initiatives; and the lessons learnt. The UK has recently developed a strong focus on innovation in the public sector. It is a component of the national innovation strategy and a wide range of organisational units and programs have been created to drive this agenda. There has been a substantial effort to review experience, develop new metrics and case studies and adapt approaches. The measures to promote innovation are driven from the centre of the public sector but implementing change at the grass roots level is slower and more challenging. Australia can learn a great deal from the UK experience. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 5 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Canada provides a contrasting case. Here innovation is less a high level goal than an outcome of a range of measures which more directly influence behaviour at the grass roots level. A focus on service improvement, adapting audit approaches to address risk management, the promotion of best practice guidelines, the provision of innovation ‘toolkits’, and a well established national innovation award program direct incentives and support those responding to specific challenges in their domain of responsibility. Singapore is perhaps a unique case; a small and dynamic country where the public sector has a pervasive role in the economy and society. Within an overall policy of continuous improvement there is a strong emphasis on empowerment, responsibility and innovation throughout the public sector. The Enterprise Challenge is a major program run from the Prime Minister’s Department that selects innovation projects, both major and minor and proposed from within and outside of the public service, for funding and fast tracking. The Netherlands is similar to Canada in that innovation is an element of a broader focus on service improvement, joined up government and the development of e-government approaches. But there has been a particular emphasis on policy innovation. For several years the Netherlands has been developing a distinctive and participative approach to the evolution of policy for addressing complex challenges, such as the transformation of the economy and society toward environmental sustainability. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 6 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies A. Framework for Assessing Policies, Programs and Other Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector 1. Introduction While there has been over the last few years a sustained increase in the emphasis on innovation in the public sector it remains the case that the basis of systematic empirically-based analysis remains limited. The empirical base is limited both with regard to the nature of innovation in the public sector – its drivers, characteristics, barriers etc – and also to the types of innovation support initiatives that are effective. It is clearly the case that the recent focus on innovation in the public sector isn’t because the public sector has recently become innovative. In many countries the public sector has been highly innovative, and it appears that it has become more so over time. It is the case however that there are rising expectations on the public service to deliver better services and policies in new ways, at lower costs, and often in response to increasingly complex issues. It is also the case that, with the extraordinary potential of IT, and the high level capabilities of the human resources in the public services, there are opportunities to deliver on those expectations. The ‘knowledge base’ for informing initiatives to increase innovation in the public sector derives from the large body of knowledge about innovation in the private sector (although the extent of applicability to the public sector is uncertain), a large number of case studies (often based on quite different methodologies and with considerable uncertainty about the extent to which experience in one type of innovation in one context provides general lessons), some broad surveys of innovations (usually derived from applicants who are winners in innovation award competitions and often without a rigorous conceptual methodology), some more systematic survey-based studies, fairly normative frameworks based on direct experience, and/or involvement in research in particular domains. Drawing on this diverse literature a framework has been developed to guide the development and interpretation of a set of case studies of how a number of comparator countries are responding to the challenge of raising the level of innovation in the public sector. This framework is outlined below. Our primary interest in these case studies is in how that goal is being pursued and what has been achieved. The following discussion in this introductory section is organised into the following four sections:  What is Innovation in the Public Sector?  Managing Innovation: Processes, Competencies and Context  Addressing the Challenges of Managing Innovation in the Public Sector. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 7 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies  Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Developing Competencies and Processes and Improving the Context. 2. What is Innovation in the Public Sector? The drivers for innovation in the public sector arise from several sources, that are more or less common to the public sector across the OECD, and include: pressure on government budgets; rising public expectations for more accessible and flexible services and greater participation in service and policy development and review; and complex social, environmental and economic challenges. The more proximate drivers arise from: the priorities of politicians; the specific problems that arise in areas of policy, administration, and services; and, the identification of options for improvement. The term ‘innovation’ is a heterogeneous category. The Publin project1 provides the following examples of innovation in the public sector:  new or improved services (for example, health care at home)  process innovation (a change in the manufacturing of a service or product)  administrative innovation (for example, the use of a new policy instrument, which may be a result of policy change)  system innovation (a new system or a fundamental change of an existing system, for instance by the establishment of new organizations or new patterns of co-operation and interaction)  conceptual innovation (a change in the outlook of actors; such changes are accompanied by the use of new concepts, for example integrated water management or mobility leasing)  radical (or paradigmatic) changes of belief systems or rationalities (meaning that the world view or the mental matrix of the employees of an organization is shifting, eg joined-up-government) A complementary set of categories is that of Bekkers et al.2 :  Product or service innovation, focused on the creation of new public services or products.  Technological innovations that emerge through the creation and use of new technologies, such as the use of mobile devices and cell broadcasting to warn citizens in the case of an emergency;  Process innovations, focused on the improvement of the quality and efficiency of the internal and external business processes, like the direct filing and automated assessment of taxes; 1 Koch, P., Cunningham, P., Schwabsky, N. and Hauknes, J. Innovation in the Public Sector- Summary and policy recommendations Publin Report No. D24 Published by NIFU STEP Studies in Innovation, Research and Education http://www.step.no/publin/reports/d24-summary-final.pdf 2 V. Bekkers, H. van Duivenboden and M. Thaens, Public Innovation and Communication technology: relevant backgrounds and concepts, in: Information and Communication Technology and Public Innovation, V. Bekkers, H. van Duivenboden and M. Thaens, eds, IOS Press, Amsterdam/Berlin/Oxford/Tokyo/Washington DC, 2006, pp. 3–21. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 8 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies  Organizational innovations, focused on the creation of new organizational forms, the introduction of new management methods and techniques, and new working methods. Examples are the creation of shared service centres or the use of quality systems;  Conceptual innovations. These innovations occur in relation to the introduction of new concepts, frames of reference or even new paradigms, like the concept of New Public Management or the notion of governance; and  Institutional innovations, which refer to fundamental transformations in the institutional relations between organizations, institutions, and other actors in the public sector. An example is the introduction of elements of direct democracy, through referenda in a representative democracy. While the terminology is far from consistent, ‘systems innovation’ and ‘institutional innovation’ is similar to what is elsewhere termed ‘innovations in governance’. There is certainly a good deal of evidence that: “..we seem to be going through a revolution in the governance of public production systems as governments seek to reach beyond their borders to find additional resources, additional operational capacity, and even additional legitimacy to achieve their assigned goals [in some cases] innovations involve new ways of knitting elements of different organizations together to create a more effective problemsolving approach to a given problem.. These shifts, in line with other changes associated with ‘networked governance.”3p 5-6. These forms of innovation in governance are likely to change information and resource flows, and lead to changes in the behaviour of other actors in the target or related ‘systems’, and in so doing stimulate other innovations. A recent review emphasises the increasing importance of innovations in governance and draws out the distinctive characteristics of these types of innovation: These innovations change production systems that cut across the boundaries of organizations, not just those of a single organization. They enlarge the range of resources that can be tapped to enlarge and improve the performance of the production system. They involve changes in what instruments government uses to animate and direct the production system for achieving the desired goals. They alter the configuration of decision-making rights with respect to how private and public resources will be used. And they raise important questions about the distribution of burdens and privileges in the society.” p.184 It is often far from clear how one might allocate a particular innovation to one of these conceptual categories. For example, Sabatier (1993, p.19) defines policy learning as “a relatively enduring alteration of thought or behavioural intentions that are concerned with the attainment (or revision) of the precepts of a policy Moore, M & Hartley, J. (2008) ‘Innovations in Governance’. Public Management Review 10(1):3-20 4 Ibid, p.18 3 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 9 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies belief system’”5. There is also a need for some caution about the extent to which generalisations about the management of innovation apply with equal appropriateness to all types of innovation. While all of these types of innovation may be cases of the general definition – the effective application of a new idea there are nevertheless many differences among them. Mechanisms that are effective in promoting one type of innovation may be ineffective for others. The public service context As noted above, there is a very large body of knowledge regarding innovation in the public sector - but nevertheless much continuing uncertainty about how best to measure, promote and manage it. The EU Publin project included a study which sought to characterise the differences between innovation in the private and in the public sector, and this is set out below. We will return to the nature of the public sector context in the third section of this paper. We will show how the public sector context sets particular challenges that require innovation in how to promote innovation, rather than simply imitates the approaches that worked in the organisationally and socially much simpler context of the private sector. The public sector has a critical role to play in leading innovation in a diverse range of areas where private sector innovation has failed to provide solutions to such social problems as sustainability, affordable health, and social inclusion. Table 1: Differences between private and public sector innovation Organising Principles Organisational Structures Private Sector Pursuit of Profit, Stability or Growth of Revenues, Market Share, Return on Investment while minimising risk and surviving. Firms of many sizes, with options for new entrants. Performance Metrics Return on Investment Management Issues Some managers have considerable autonomy, others constrained by shareholders, corporate governance, or financial stringency. Successful managers liable to be rewarded with substantial material benefits and promotion. Markets may be consumer or industrial ones, and firms vary in the intimacy of their links with the end-users of their products, but typically market feedback provides the verdict on innovation. Relations with: ~ End-Users Public Sector Enactment of Public Policies. Complex system of organisations with various (and to some extent conflicting) tasks Multiple performance indicators and targets which are political, social etc and may be contradictory. While there are efforts to emulate private sector management practice, mangers are typically under high levels of political scrutiny. Successful managers likely to receive lower material benefits than comparable private sector managers. End-users are the general public, traditionally seen as citizens, though recently there have been efforts to introduce market-type principles and move to see them as customers or consumers. 5 This could be considered an administrative innovation but includes changes in frames, values and meanings. Publin report D15 René Kemp and Rifka Weehuizen: Policy learning, what does it and how can we study it? Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 10 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies ~ Supply Chains ~ Employees ~ Sources of Knowledge Time Horizon Most firms are parts of one or more supply chains, with larger firms tending to organise and control these chains. Nature of workforce varies considerably, and relations between employees and management range from fractious to harmonious. Efforts are made in some firms to instil company loyalty and/or a customercentric approach, but employee motivations are often mainly economic ones of securing a reasonable income and stability. Public sector is typically dependent on private suppliers for much of its equipment, and is a very important market for many firms. Public sector employees are typically highly unionised (economists and social scientists in the central administration and health - and social professionals as nurses, social workers, child-care workers, teachers etc in the public services). Many are also professional workers organised through professional associations. While usual concerns about status and salary are experienced, many workers enter public service with idealistic motivations. Companies have considerable flexibility in sourcing innovationrelated information from consultants, trade associations, and public sector researchers, but many smaller firms have limited resources to do so. Despite large resources, parts of the public sector may be constrained from using private sources of knowledge (other than those of suppliers). Public sector sources of knowledge (e.g. universities) may be highly oriented to other parts of the public sector. Short-term: policy-initiated innovations need to pay off within the election period. Short-term in many sectors, though utilities and infrastructural services may have very long horizons Based on: Koch, P., Cunningham, P., Schwabsky, N. and Hauknes, J. Innovation in the Public Sector- Summary and policy recommendations Publin Report No. D24 Published by NIFU STEP Studies in Innovation, Research and Education http://www.step.no/publin/reports/d24-summary-final.pdf 3. Managing Innovation: Processes Competencies and Context While remaining mindful of the limitations of transferring models from the analysis of innovation in the private sector, we will set out five robust general frameworks/models of innovation processes in the private sector. We will then draw some basic points from this assessment that we carry forward into addressing the challenges of innovation in the public sector. In discussing these five frameworks/models we will be considering the question: What capabilities are required at the individual, group, organisational and public service levels to develop and sustain innovation systems? Framework 1: Bringing a New Idea into Application There are many models of the innovation process - Figure 1, below, outlines five stages and four bridges along the process of creating value through innovation. There are two key points to draw from this model. First, the development of an idea generally progresses through a series of stages (five are shown) each with different stakeholders and each stage involves different criteria and different communication patterns. So, for example, the first stage is essentially developing the idea through thought experiments and discussion to build confidence in and develop the basic concept, and the second stage is ‘incubating’ Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 11 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies the idea to assess and develop it further. Second, the progress between stages involves a form of transition bridge, when the idea and evolving project must win additional stakeholders and resources. A failure to cross this bridge means a failure to progress – although very often ideas are kept alive within a stage hoping for further development or a more positive reception at another time. Innovation champions often need persuasiveness and tenacity to pilot an innovation through these stages6. The key point here is that the transition across these bridges requires a focused effort by the proponents to address the selection environment for the next stage. From the perspective of the overall organisation the assessment processes involved with these bridges need to be transparent and well managed. An organisation would be likely to have a portfolio of projects at each of these stages. That portfolio might include a range of projects as shown in the following framework – in which case not only would the assessment criteria be different for each stage of the progress of the innovation but they would also be different for each type of innovation. FIGURE 1: Bringing an Innovation from Idea to Application Figure 1 outlines 9 steps in 4 overlapping stages of the innovation process. 1. Imagining the Dual (Techno-Market) Insight 2. Mobilizing Interest and Endorsement 3. Incubating to Define Commercializability 4. Mobilizing Resources for Demonstration 5. Demonstrating Contextuality in Products and Processes 6. Mobilizing ‘Market’ Constituents 7. Promoting Adoption 8. Mobilizing Complementary Assets for Delivery 9. Sustaining Full Implementation Steps 3, 5, 7, and 9 are subprocesses for building the value of an innovation. Steps 2, 4, 6 and 8 are bridges for satisfying and mobilizing stakeholders at each stage. Source: V.J. Jolly (1997) Mind to Market. Harvard Business Press Framework 2: Innovation Portfolios The majority of innovations are incremental improvements within existing structures, products, services etc. However, the improvements that can be achieved through incremental processes tend to reach diminishing returns without more radical change in the framework of organisation, service, policy etc. Incremental and more radical innovation tend to be inter-related in that incremental innovation tends to both develop the potential of an existing arrangement (major innovations quite often perform poorly until a host of follow up minor improvements are made) while often identifying the required directions (if not mechanisms) of more major change. One essential issue is that 6 Crawford, C. B. (2001) Leadership and Innovation: Champions and Techies as Agents of Influence. Association of Leadership Educators.; Shane, S. , Venkataraman, Sl and MacMillan, I. (1995) Cultural Differences in Innovation Championing Strategies. Journal of Management. 21(5): 931-952.; Howell, J. et al (2005) Champions of product Innovations: defining, developing and validating a measure of champion behaviour. Journal of Business Venturing 20: 641-661. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 12 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies organisations need to develop the capacities for all types of innovation. An approach that works quite well for minor innovation may lead to a form of ‘lock – in’ to existing approaches (in which the organisation and its members have committed enormous improvement effort) and a reluctance to explore a quite different path involving different perspectives and capabilities. A second issue is that addressing innovation that involves greater discontinuity with established organisational arrangements, knowledge bases, norms and routines is usually quite difficult in organisations focused on short term performance and its improvement – ie almost all organisations. This can be a dilemma - approaches that support continuous improvements in productivity and quality, while reducing the risk of change, are unlikely to also support more disruptive change. There is much debate about how best to manage radical innovation. While the competencies and processes that support incremental innovation are reasonably well know, this is not the case for radical innovation. It is recognised that successful radical innovation will be likely to involve, to a greater extent than other forms of innovation, the formation of separate organisations (eg spin offs, or new corporate ventures) and a higher level of collaboration with other organisations that bring complementary capabilities and perspectives (eg though strategic alliances, business service providers or co-innovation with users). Because of the high levels of uncertainty and risk, radical innovation requires an action-learning orientation, rather than a project execution approach. Figure 2: Types of Innovation and Innovation Portfolios Figure 2 shows the increasing impact and need for risk management, collaboration and communication as the degree of uncertainty and complexity increases from incremental to major to radical to paradigm. The external impacts and linkages range from processes for incremental innovations, to services and policies as the uncertainty increases. Source: Author Framework 3: Processes and Capabilities Organisations must develop the capabilities for innovation. Those capabilities cannot be imported, nor achieved simply by hiring people or by implementing a blueprint. They must be learned. Such learning involves an evolutionary process of investment, action and evaluation. Innovativeness and innovation capability is accumulated over time and is embodied in the capabilities of individuals (involving both cognitive frameworks and specific skills) and also it is embodied in the specific policies, structures, management processes, communication patterns, culture, ‘ways of doing things’ of an organisation. Table 2 below provides an indicative identification of key processes and capabilities in relation to major stages of the typical innovation process. Table 2. Innovation Management Processes and Capabilities. Innovation Processes Processes Enabling Routines/ Systems Capabilities [Resources , Positions] Cognitive Skills Frameworks Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 13 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Recognising technical and economic clues [Sensing, Opportunity discovery] Aligning business strategy and innovation strategy Acquiring new knowledge from outside the firm Generating new knowledge in-house through eg research, development, engineering Scanning Forecasting Assessing Business intelligence Risk Management Road-mapping Business case analysis Financial analysis Impact assessment Risk analysis Decision making Collaboration management Alliance management Licensing IP management Networking Stage gate Product development Relevant Technologies Market, social & industry dynamics Technology evolution Competitor Analysis Strategic analysis Business planning Analysis Communication Persuasion Leadership Tolerating ambiguity & uncertainty Cultural awareness Culture change Planning Knowledge transfer Negotiation Valuation Relevant science and technology, organisational application, regulatory knowledge Creativity IP management Research Design Choosing an innovation focus appropriate to the opportunity & capability Executing projects Evaluation Portfolio management Project Management Team Management Problem Solving Marketing Cross Functional teams IP management Budgeting Implementing change in the organisation Learning through the evaluation of experience and the incorporation of ‘lessons’ into routines Developing the Organisation through embedding effective routines in structures, processes and behaviours. Change management Organisational change dynamics Review Monitoring Communication Persuasion Leadership Communication Team building Delegation Empowerment Motivation Conflict resolution Leadership Self management Stress management Change management Problem solving Failure tolerance Communication Training Team building TQM Delegation Codification Empowerment Experiment Motivation Auditing Idea management Incentive systems Continuous improvement Human resource mngmt Knowledge management Based on: Tidd, J. Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing Innovation. Integrating, Technological, Market and Organizational Change. 3rd Edition. Chichester. Wiley; Carlopio, J. (2003) Changing Gears. The Strategic Implementation of Technology. Palgrave Macmillan; IMP³rove for Innovation Management Professionals. The IMP³rove Approach The IMP³rove Platform. Version 1.3 November, 2007, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=3048&userser vice_id=1; Rae, D.M. (1997), “Teaching entrepreneurship in Asia: impact of a pedagogical innovation”, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 193-227. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 14 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Framework 4: Linking Strategy to Building Capabilities and Processes The processes and capabilities that constitute the innovativeness of an organisation are to a certain extent organisation-specific and also direction and strategy-specific, as summarised below. Figure 3: Foundations of Organisational Innovativeness Figure 3 shows the three foundations for organisational innovativeness – processes and culture; capabilities; strategy and resources. Source: Author If an organisation changes direction in a major way, eg from policy to service delivery, its innovative capability may decline until it goes through a process of ‘creative destruction’ and evolutionary reconstruction. The resources for any particular innovation path must be linked to organisational strategies, ie innovation cannot be a chance event or maintained at the level of rhetoric. To achieve strong innovative capability the organisation would need to actively choose experiences (ie being innovative) that build capability and work through the implications of experience for all aspects of structure, management etc, ie evolve toward a strategic priority of greater innovation. An organisation’s innovation ‘system’ will in large part be shaped by the innovation challenges it chooses and how it pursues them. Joyce (2007) comments that an innovation initiative will require additional resources and that in making the case for these resources performance information could be a source of the data needed. KPMG’s survey‐based study on performance in government made a similar point: “..the main difficulty in financing and funding projects is the inability to determine the true costs of individual projects and programs. That beats even the challenge of raising funds in the first place. Many feel they cannot communicate the true benefits of the program, and costs of individual projects often remain obscure. The best way to overcome these problems, according to respondents, is to integrate financial and performance information.” ((KPMG International, 2007):p. 23) It is important to add that the capabilities that an organisation uses for innovation need not be internal, but they do need to be accessible. Hence, an important part of an organisations capability is embodied in its links to external sources of capability. These may be straightforward market-based links or more strategic relationships with providers of training, research or strategic assessment services. Framework 5: Building an Innovation System As change become more frequent, and the knowledge intensity of change increases, organisations are continually renovating their processes and capabilities. Hence, a key output of all activities of an organisation is learning. The more frequent, novel and complex change is, the more important is an Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 15 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies organisation’s innovation and learning system - as shown below. From this perspective an organisation’s procedures, promotion criteria, strategic plans etc should be designed to address both the short term performance requirements and the task of continual renovation. Figure 4: Building an Innovation System in the Organisation Figure 4 looks at the steps for building an innovation system in the organisation. This consists of four stages  Clarify drivers and provide incentives  Developing innovative ideas from staff, suppliers, customers, other organisations  Implement innovations: leadership, risk management, address barriers  Scale up for wider implementation These stages interact with two overarching processes:  Learning: about generating ideas, incentives that work, project management, leadership, scaling up  Building confidence, networks, linkages outside the organisation, reputation, new organisational arrangements Source: Modified from UK, Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9 Summarising the discussion in this section, we can identify eight key requirements for innovative public sector organisations, as set out in Table 3. Table 3: Requirements for Effective Innovation7 Key Requirement Leadership Resources Networks Culture Competencies Ideas Learning Organisational strategies Criteria Champions who set goals and provide organisational support and protect the ideas from premature judgement Commitments of resources through each stage of the innovation process. Short term budget & planning horizons can limit sustained commitment. Informal networks linking individuals to sources of capability and to communities of practice; formal networks linking organisations to others related vertically or horizontally or outside the public sector. Cultures that support the identification and exploration of ideas from any source, experimentation and risk taking, that supports learning; good internal communications; lack on internal politicking Accessible competencies inside or outside the organisation. Ideas, the starting point for innovation, may come from any source. Analysis of the external environment Individuals, teams and organisations learn from training activities, case studies, experience, reviews Strategies that recognise the role of renovating systems and capabilities for innovation, and that develop performance evaluation approaches to assess the effectiveness of the organisation’s innovation systems; future 7 Based on Albury (2006), Borins (2006), Roste (2004);Koch & Hauknes, Publin (2005);Mulgan & Albury (2003); Mulgan (2007); UK, NAO (2006); LSE Public Policy Group (2008). Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 16 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies orientation 4. Addressing the Challenges of Managing Innovation in the Public Sector. Public sector organisations face a more complex context in which to innovate:  They have multiple objectives, some of which are ambiguous and may be conflicting;  They are often part of complex organisational arrangements that involve extensive consultation and coordination;  Most public sector organisations are quite large and responsible for a diverse range of activity, compared with most private sector firms;  There is less tolerance from politicians and the public for (perceived) failure and for not meeting the needs of some social groups;  In the context of external accountability to Parliament, following rules and procedures may be seen as more important as achieving outcomes;  The nature of public service employment may be more likely to attract recruits who are less focused on monetary reward and also perhaps less inclined to be entrepreneurial risk takers. At the heart of the challenge of improving innovation in the public sector is a set of contradictions8:  Audits focus on deviation from rules rather than what is working well, despite the rules - leading to a risk that staff are required to focus on results but are judged on compliance;  Accountability frameworks also focus more on compliance than learning;  Operating as a hierarchical rule-bound organisation in an increasingly turbulent, uncertain, interactive and rapidly changing world; and,  Designed to serve all of the citizens, rather than focus on only a segment (as do most private sector firms). In this complex and contested context it is often more difficult for innovations to gain the required political and/or bureaucratic support, unless they are seen as lower risk and directly address priority policy goals or cost savings. Barriers to Innovation A great deal has been written about the barriers to innovation in public sector organisations. Certainly, in designing initiatives to improve innovativeness and innovation performance it is essential to address these barriers. Table 4, which is based on a wide range of studies and literature reviews of innovation in the public sector, aims to characterise the key barriers identified in these studies and to also characterise types of response to these challenges, ranging from incremental to more radical. 8 This perspective is influenced by Brodtrick, O. (2007) Searching for High Performance in Rule-Bound Systems: Tensions between Innovation and Accountability. A presentation to IPAC CEPMA. Also: Balancing risk and accountability http://www.ccaffcvi.com/IRCSymposium/english/IRC-TakingChances.pdf Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 17 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Table 4: Specific Challenges Related to Innovation Barriers and Possible Responses Challenge More Incremental Responses More Radical Responses Dealing with the risk of failure. Public organisations are under the close scrutiny of both politicians and the media, and employees are not normally rewarded for taking risks. Pilots; learning-oriented evaluation; Accepting that more mistakes will occur and having a strategy to deal with these.; Engage all stakeholders in assessing needs, options, goals, risks; look at exemplars. Develop performance assessment which includes participation in change; Increase ownership of new initiatives. Growth of a culture of review. Assessment practices may stimulate innovation. Performance evaluation that includes how ideas are assessed, etc; incentive schemes. Establish clear goals for policy and program performance and link innovation initiatives to these. Improve the extent to which evaluations identify useful learning. Increase staff mobility and exchange Strengthen leadership. Models developed by NGOs and private companies may be adopted by public institutions. Develop in politicians and the public a greater awareness the risk is involved in more innovative approaches. Develop new programs or services through small ‘spin out’ organisations. Launch high profile public sector innovation challenges. Develop mentoring, training, staff suggestion schemes, staff exchanges; knowledge management systems; Review projects for learning. Training to understand the options arising from change in target user groups and in delivery mechanisms. Benchmarking; Case studies of exemplar innovations. Support sabbaticals for dynamic staff to innovative organisations. Codify and assess the development of the organisational innovation system. Foresight to develop insight into the likely evolution of industries, issues, technologies etc. ‘ Develop whole system modelling to assess dynamics; Develop future oriented organisational strategies for the longer term Develop learning alliances with external groups. Lack of orientation to innovation, lack of ‘competitive spur’. Lack of budget allocation and time for exploration Dealing with rule bound organisations- in a low trust context; Heritage and legacy with entrenched practices and procedures. Professional resistance, linked to belief systems and perspectives. Union and middle management opposition. Innovation ‘fatigue’. Poor skills in change and risk management Lack of alignment of technological, cultural, organisational aspects. Lack of innovative ideas and perspectives. Absence of capacity for organisational learning. There may be a lack of structures or mechanisms for the enhancement of organisational learning.; Lack of systematic policy learning. Articulate a strategy for policy learning Form ad hoc working groups, workshops. Modify audit processes and carry out post project reviews. Avoid lock-in the dominant ideas and approaches, cultivate plurality of perspectives. Increase collaboration and networking in as many functions of the organisation as possible. Develop separate parallel evaluation studies focussed only on identifying and capturing relevant learning from programs. Introduce learning sabbaticals of varying durations. Develop longer term visions of the future of the relevant functions in the public sector. Sources: Publin (2007) ; iDea (2005); Mulgan (2007); Mulgan & Albury (2003); Vigoda-Gadot et al (2005) Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 18 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Barriers to Developing a More Effective Focus on Innovation As discussed above an essential process in developing capacities to innovate and to sustain innovation performance is learning – the development of skill and knowledge embodied in individuals and in routines, processes, guidelines etc. However, there typically are obstacles to effective learning in the public sector. These arise from9:  An aversion to failure, which can be reinforced by the political processes, at the parliamentary and intra-organisational level, which uses failure to score points rather than learn lessons;  The pressure of uniformity in public services;  Shared assumptions between civil servants and ministers that command and control remains the most appropriate regime for management control;  Lack of evaluation of previous policies and particularly lack of evaluation focused on learning;  Lack of time and resources to do anything other than cope with events;  A tradition of secrecy used to stifle feedback and learning; and,  The role of turf wars in negotiations between departments. These are likely to be, to a greater or less degree, continuing realities of the public sector context. This suggests that effective measures to raise innovation performance will require strong overall leadership from senior levels, an integrated set of measures to change the context and provide support resources, and a sustained effort to identify and pursue opportunities for change. Without such opportunities, which act as focusing devices, change will not be embedded in organisations and routine will prevail. 5. Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Developing Competencies and Processes and Improving the Context. Initiatives to improve innovation performance have three types of outcome:  Specific innovation activities – that may result in the implementation of a successful innovation;  Experiences and learning processes by all involved – that may build capability at the individual level, at the group level, and at the organisational level (eg via developing external links); and  Learning about how to promote and support innovation – which may be diffused more widely. All or some of these outcomes could range from highly negative to highly positive, depending on how the process is managed. For example, an unsuccessful innovation project might nevertheless yield vital learning which improves overall 9 This list is largely based on René Kemp & Rifka Weehuizen Policy learning, what does it mean and how can we study it? Publin report D15 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 19 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies innovativeness, and a highly successful project, in the narrow functional sense, may have been destructive of trust and good-will to the extent that innovativeness declines. Managing innovation activity for multiple outcomes is a key role of management. In Table 5 and in Figure 5 below we identify the key types of initiative that have been used to raise innovation capability in the public sector, and the objectives of the expected outcomes of these initiatives. In Table 6 we characterise each of these initiatives, providing some examples of their implementation. Table5: Types of Initiative to Raise Innovation Capability & Performance Awareness  Training Programs Capability Building  On-line resources support tools Development of case studies, resources  Position guidelines and selection criteria Individual and group incentives Organisation level innovation strategies Organisation level innovation performance assessment Innovation awards and competitions Innovation units at the Central level Innovation units at the Departmental level Funds for pilots at the Departmental level Innovation units outside government Research on PS innovation Surveys of PS innovation- with metrics Benchmarking, intra and international           Central fund for supporting trials Central organisation for capturing and diffusing experience     Diffusion   Organisational performance and audit guidelines Learning                Tables 7 and 8 provide some additional checklists for agency and department level innovation development initiatives. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 20 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Figure 5: Overall Public Service Strategy for Innovation Performance – Types of Initiative Figure 5 outlines the different types of initiatives that can make-up a strategy for innovation performance. These include support resources, direct initiatives, embedding in performance assessment. External support resources - Establishment of External Innovation Support Unit; Establishment of External Training Facility/Program Central support resources - Development of On-Line Support Resources; Central Level Training Programs; Development of Case Studies & Support resources; Research on PS Innovation – Aust. & International; Surveys of PS Innovation & development of metrics Central Direct initiatives - Central Innovation Unit to Lead Specific Projects; Central Fund for Supporting Trials; Central Unit for Capturing & Disseminating Learning; Innovation Awards & Competitions Department or Agency direct initiatives - Organisation Level Innovation Unit to Lead or Support Projects; Department Level Training Programs; Individual & Group Incentives Embedding in Performance Assessment – central initiatives - Requirement for Organisation Level Innovation Strategies; Organisational Performance & Assessment Guidelines; Development of Frameworks & Metrics for Innovation Performance Assessment; Benchmarking- intra & International Embedding in Performance Assessment – department or agency initiatives - Organisation Level Innovation Performance Assessment; Position Guidelines and Selection Criteria Table 6: Initiatives to Promote Innovation Mechanism How Examples Training Programs Training on innovation management in general or in relation to specific aspects (eg procurement, service delivery, egovernment, policy development), either through public sector agencies or through specialised higher education organisations. Guidelines, case studies, reports, tools etc available through The UK National School of Government is developing a set of case studies to use in training programs. The ICCS in Canada is developing a training and certification program for public sector managers in the area of best practice service delivery. The Canadian School of Public Service has an innovation ‘tool kit’ On-line resources Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 21 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies support tools Development of case studies, resources Central fund for supporting trials a central mechanism. Such sites may also facilitate networking. Build networks to promote diffusion A central fund signals the overall significance of innovation and creates a channel outside of the intra-departmental channels and budgets – so encouraging greater risk taking. Central organisation for capturing and diffusing experience Innovation oriented procurement policies and/or support funding. Specialised units to promote new ideas. Central agencies facilitating the formation of networks among all departments/agencies to share experience. Development of best practice guidelines, requirements that functional specifications in tenders, specific programs to invite proposals, specific funding for trials. Innovation awards and competitions Some awards such as those of the Kennedy School at Harvard and the CAPAM awards have a long history. Innovation units at the Central level Networks and other initiatives to improve information flows and reduce the barriers to horizontal communication and collaboration. Organising experiments while maintaining as much flexibility as possible The development of performance audit and program evaluation frameworks which include an assessment of innovation management processes and outcomes. Organisational performance and audit guidelines Research on PS innovation Surveys of PS innovation- with 10 There are now groups focused on innovation in the public sector in several countries. These are either within public sector management schools or within innovation research groups. The current stage focuses on the development of common approaches to enable internationally comparative research. available on-line. The Sunningdale Institute in the UK is capturing learning from across the public service and disseminating the ‘lessons’. Singapore promoted innovations through the ‘Enterprise Challenge’, by the Prime Minister’s office, which funds trial applications. The US, SBIR program also facilitates the funding of trials of new technologies. In the UK, NESTA and the UK National School of Government are collaborating to distil and communicate experience. The most widely influential is the US SBIR program, now emulated in several countries. The Netherlands now has programs to promote innovative procurement and networks among departments to share experience of suppliers and project management. The NAO in the UK is promoting approaches which encourage innovation. The UK has opened in 2007 an on-line suggestion box inviting ideas for improving regulation- the approach includes public responses to suggestions and updates on progress10. The Institute of Public Administration in Canada has for many years run the IPAC Award for Innovative Management. In the UK, the Department of Department for Business Innovation & Skills has government wide role in promoting innovation within government. The UK National Audit Office is encouraging a more systematic approach to assessment and to learning from experience. The Treasury Board in Canada is developing new performance reporting guidelines for departments. In the UK NESTA has commissioned research on public sector innovation. www.betteregulation.gov.uk/ Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 22 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies metrics Organisation level innovation strategies Organisation level innovation performance assessment Innovation units at the Departmental level Funds for pilots at the Departmental level Innovation units outside government Benchmarking - intra and inter-national Leadership that supports innovation 11 Whether as functions or as roles innovative organisations need innovation champions, gatekeepers and patrons: Publicising projects; Rewarding innovators. Identifying specific challenges for improvement and canvassing diverse views on solutions from diverse sources. Use IT to make more information on programs and processes available internally to encourage continuous performance review. Many public sector organisations have introduced forms of evaluation, either on the basis of processes (eg benchmarking or using comprehensive frameworks such as the EFQM), or on a policy/program basis. Senior managers in whose responsibility is innovation performance; Organising experiments while maintaining as much flexibility as possible. Develop processes to pursue, support and reward innovation. Allocate specific budgets for innovation Seeking to reduce the risks for individuals and groups. Managing the costs of disruption associated with change. Assessing experience, Make clear it is an experiment Acquiring competencies. Building links Possibly cross department problem-focused teams. Substantial change in design may be necessary Actively learning from experience in other levels of government and in other countries. Early evaluations can be highly ambiguous – it is important to be realistic about the duration necessary for impacts to be clear11. Use independent organisations to run pilots. Use benchmarking to raise awareness of improvement opportunities Entrepreneurial leadership or leaders who support greater entrepreneurial initiative is important because hierarchical Although there are risks of missing the wood for the trees, many public sector organisations have introduced forms of knowledge management. The Department for Business Innovation & Skills in the UK assists departments in developing their innovation strategies. NESTA in the UK is developing a framework for public sector innovation metrics UK-The Department for Education set up an innovation unit which has supported imaginative communities of practice, and the Department of Health has established an NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Within individual agencies, too, smaller innovation funds have been widely used to give front line managers a chance to try out new ideas. Support for pilots and trials is increasingly common throughout the UK public sector. In the UK NESTA’s ‘Lab’ is an initiative to develop and test new policies, particularly social policy. NESTA is a semi-independent organisation in the UK linked to the Department for Business Innovation & Skills, and with a mandate to promote innovation in all sectors including the public sector. The Canadian Institute of Public Administration’s Smart Tape Centre diffuses best practice standards. See for example the discussion in Mulgan (2007) p21-2 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 23 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Position guidelines and selection criteria Individual and group incentives structures progressively limit degrees of freedom in lower levels of the organisation: Encouraging new ideas; setting improvement goals; clearing indicating that innovation is a valued activity Include supporting and leading innovation among the attributes for selection and advancement. Incentives can include bonus payments, promotion, awards, internal publicity, opportunities for training or sabbaticals. Programs to fund new initiatives and facilitate greater risk taking These can be attached to broad programs, departments/agencies or whole-of-government. Procurement programs that incorporate a specific objective of promoting innovation by suppliers There are many examples of pro-innovation procurement approaches (and a large literature on the issue). In the UK innovation-related skills are now included in the competency framework for public servants. The Victorian Dept of Premier and Cabinet introduced a ‘policy idol’ program in 2007 to solicit ideas from all employees. Proponents of selected proposals would have the opportunity to develop their ideas. Singapore promoted innovations through the ‘Enterprise Challenge’, by the Prime Minister’s office. Examples of the 68 funded proposals include a ‘virtual policing centre’ for non-urgent enquiries directed to the Singapore Police Force. The ‘Invest to Save Budget’ provided a large pool of money to back promising innovations that crossed organisational boundaries12. One of the longest running and reviewed programs is the US Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) which required research agencies with annual expenditure over US$100m for extra-mural R&D to allocate at least 2.5% to assist SMEs develop innovations with public benefits13. 12 www.isb.gov.uk Wessner, C.W., Converting Research into Innovation and Growth, SBIR, the University and the Park, National Research Council, April 10 2008. http://www.unece. org/ceci/ppt_presentations/2008/fid/Charles%20Wessner.pdf 13 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 24 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Table 7: A Simple Checklist for Public Agencies and Departments Seeking to Improve their Innovation Performance Assessing priority areas for innovation Assigning & defining roles Budgets Processes Shapers, incubators, accelerators. Recruitment Piloting & testing What steps have been taken to determine the most important fields, issues, and problems for innovation? These include: fields of relative policy or delivery failure; areas where new technologies create opportunities; cross-cutting fields. Who has board and ministerial level responsibility for innovation? What units, teams or groups are there to organise innovation? Whose job is it to scan internationally for promising ideas; to scan domestically; and to learn from neighbouring fields? How are broad and specific budgets to support innovation determined, and what methods are used to determine spending levels, metrics etc? What processes are used to promote innovation; take stock of successes and failures and determine which innovations should be scaled up (eg spending reviews, strategy reviews)? What mechanisms exist to develop promising ideas into workable prototypes, either through mixed in-house teams or arm’s length bodies? What steps are taken to ensure recruitment and retention of creative, entrepreneurial people? What mix of pilots, pathfinders, ventures is used and why? How are users, consumers and citizens engaged in innovation – for example through networks, holding funds, etc? What methods are used to define and measure success? User pull Testing & Measurement Leadership What signals do political and official leaders provide to validate innovation? Culture shaping Networks Risk management What cultural measures exist to shape a pro-innovation culture (eg awards, heroes, stories, champions, pay-determination)? Which networks support innovation and ensure that successful innovations are nurtured? What methods are used to manage risks, including appropriate risk/reward ratios, handling of political risk, financial risk, etc? Source: Mulgan (2007) Table 8: Lessons for public sector innovators  Make the project exciting for staff  Promote the program and ensure positive media coverage  Make sure that the program objectives reflect and are in line with the organisation’s aims and objectives  The project manager who is the primary change agent should be taskoriented  Involve stakeholders as far as possible throughout the innovation stages  Establish and maintain effective communication with all program participants  Secure support from senior management  Have a clear mission and end goal  Allow staff the freedom to innovate and tolerate mistakes  Have a small implementation team who hold the decision-making power  Think strategically and consider the wider implications of the program  Have a champion who feels ownership for the program Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 25 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies  Be dedicated and persistent as innovation programs are not easy  Well managed documentation is tedious but essential  Develop adequate control mechanisms and support governance structures with agreements  Solicit regular feedback from program participants and demonstrate early ongoing success  Implement quickly to avoid losing focus and momentum  Learn from mistakes as they occur and do not be afraid to change plans based on new information or in response to a changing environment  Learn from other innovators  Ensure that you have the necessary resources Source: iDea (2005) Innovation in Public Services Future Directions of Innovation As suggested in the following table, much of the innovation in the public sector is essentially improving and extending a model of public administration developed over many decades. It may be the case that more radical approaches, greater paradigmatic changes, are necessary to innovate policies and services for the future. Table 9: Shifts in public administrations’ emphasis Shifts in emphasis towards a more open, responsive and creative public administration FROM Distant Vertical Design logic Power-based rule-based Efficiency Independence Policy-based steering Political accountability Discrete organization Professional autonomy Detailed central steering Indirect participation TO Open Horizontal Action logic Trust-based Context-based Responsiveness Interdependence Frontline steering Societal responsibility Embedded organization Professional responsibility Indirect, global steering Direct participation Source: H. van Duivenboden and M. Thaens (2008) / ICT-driven innovation and the culture of public administration.Information Polity 13 (2008) 213–232, p.228 “Even if serious attempts are being undertaken to deal with cultural change issues, it is increasingly difficult to make a success out of them because it is no longer a matter of changing one particular organizational culture but of changing a number of routines, values, rites, rules and styles of several parties at the same time. After all, due to the linkage capacity of modern technology and the penetration of ICT into the primary processes of public administration, many ICT-innovations have an inter-organizational and/or relational character. This observation stresses the necessity of collaboration between relevant stakeholders and the emergence of intermediary organizations, like trusted third parties or shared service centres, which facilitate collaboration. Hereby, (personal and/or mutual) trust can be seen as an important condition for actors Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 26 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies to get engaged in a learning and communication process in which a process of creative destruction actually can take place and actors do not have to fear for sheer power politics and opportunism” H. van Duivenboden and M. Thaens (2008) ICT-driven innovation and the culture of public administration. Information Polity 13 (2008) 213–232, p.22914 14 See also: van Duivenboden, H. V. Bekkers and M. Thaens, Creative Destruction of Public Administration Practices: An Assessment of ICT-Driven Public Innovations, in: Information and Communication Technology and Public Innovation, Assessing the ICTDriven Modernization of Public Administration, V. Bekkers, H. van Duivenboden and M. Thaens, eds, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2006, pp. 230–242. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 27 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Part B: Case Studies B.1 United Kingdom 1. Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector. The strong focus on innovation in the UK public sector is driven by the search for productivity in the context of tightening budgets, the challenges arising from complex social and environmental issues, and rising demands from the public for more accessible and responsive and flexible services. Almost all organisations saw innovation as a potential contributor to efficiency, policy development, improved procurement, internal administrative processes, and communication with users, staff training, delivery of services, and changing citizen behaviour. The recent report reviewing public sector innovation performance 15 considers that: “These factors will mean that government cannot simply do more of what it has always done, but that it will need to develop radical and new approaches and seize ideas within and outside organisations that can lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness.p11. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) the government allocated over 3 billion a year for innovation through departmental innovation budgets and will allocate a further 2.5 billion to support public sector innovation from 2008-9. Over the past two years the promotion of innovation in the public sector has become a new and important responsibility for a number of organisations that are themselves new. Hence, while there are bold plans and initiatives it remains to be seen how effective these will be. Organisations responsible for promoting innovation include both those with a role across government and those at the department or agency level. The Department of Department for Business Innovation & Skills (DBIS) has the primary responsibility for innovation in the public sector. This role is set out in the White Paper (of March, 2008), Innovation Nation. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit in the Cabinet Office also has a responsibility to promote innovation in policy development16 and delivery, as part of wider responsibilities to promote ‘long term and cross cutting strategic issues’, and hence there is some overlap of responsibility. These two organisations work closely together. The Treasury’s Operational Efficiency Program includes strategies for facilitating ‘front line innovation’. Innovation is now also one of the components of the skills included in the competency framework for the public sector. 15 UK, Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15. 16 See UK Cabinet Office. Excellence and fairness: Achieving world class public services, August 2008; and UK Cabinet Office. Transformational Government, Enabled by Technology, November 2005. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 28 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies DBIS has a Steering Group for its Public Sector Innovation Policy Team, which includes representation from the Cabinet Office, Treasury, Institute for Government and others. The head of this DBIS team also sits on the Cabinet Office council with oversight for the long term strategy of public sector transformation. In pursuing these innovation goals DBIS works closely with the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), which is primarily funded by a public endowment. NESTA has established in March 2009 ‘the Lab’, a public sector Innovation Laboratory, to trial new approaches to developing and supporting public sector innovation. The Design Council is partly sponsored by DBIS and it is trialling an innovation enabling program, ‘Public Services by Design’. The Sunningdale Institute, which is managed by the National School of Government (a non-Ministerial government department), is collaborating with other public sector organisations to establish a Whitehall Hub for Innovators. This hub is intended to be a mechanism for capturing and disseminating learning about public sector innovation. Figure – United Kingdom Public Sector Innovation System This figure looks at the various components of the United Kingdom public sector innovation system. This includes the Cabinet Office and the Treasury who make up the DIUS Steering Group, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills or DIUS, the Office of Government Commerce, the Whitehall Innovators Group, Government Departments which include sector-specific innovation units and centres, and DIUS delivery partners including NESTA, the Design Council and the National School of Government and Sunningdale Institute. Source:UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15 The promotion and implementation of innovation is also a responsibility of other public sector organisations, from those with broad responsibilities - like the Technology Strategy Board which promotes the adoption in the public sector of technological innovations developed in the private sector - to units in Departments. For example, initiatives within the Department of Health focus on how it can best support and enable innovation in the NHS. The Ministry of Defence also has a unit to promote innovation. Examples of innovation units     At the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs’ Innovation Centre policy or delivery teams can run workshops designed to enable the generation of innovative solutions to problems. The Department for Work and Pensions’ IT Innovation Centre and Solutions Centre are designed to inspire creativity and innovation as well as being a site where new ideas can be tested before implementation. The Centres are also available for use by other government bodies. The Ministry of Defence’s Centre for defence Enterprise invites proposals for funding and support from companies with scientific or technological innovations that have a potential application in defence. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, sponsored by the Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 29 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies   Department of Health, promotes service innovations by producing guidance and spreading information about good practices such as Case 1. The NHS National Innovation Centre (part of the NHS Institute) supports the adoption of technological innovation from industry. It uses a web-based screening tool to allow innovators to self- assess potential ideas, and assistance for the most promising ones to be developed within the health service. The Government Gateway team in the Department for Work and Pensions is working on an adapting the screening tools so that they can be made available across government. In local government, the Social Innovation Lab for Kent helps council staff solve local problems. For instance academic experts have used ethnographic techniques to help the council understand the experience of service users, leading to changes such as services for fathers at children’s centres and better internet access to information on care services. Source: UK, Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9 In regard to procurement the Treasury, the Office of Government Commerce and DIUS have encouraged departments to use procurement approaches which lead suppliers to innovate. A Treasury report17 makes the case for a strong initiative to seek greater innovation through procurement practices. The Office of Government Commerce will have stronger powers to set standards for department’s procurement performance, monitor progress against them, and seek improvements where these are likely to generate value. In response to the 2005 Transformational Government Strategy, the Cabinet Office set up the Customer Insight Forum as a mechanism to diffuse good practice, identify the barriers that impede change and promote improved policy and delivery. Follow-up reviews have sought to continue to drive this direction of change18. Focus groups of public servants and consultants to the public sector, convened by the LSE Public Policy Group in 2006, provided a good deal of evidence of an increasing focus on innovation in the UK public service with relevant change in culture and organisation19. NESTA In response to what they see as a major gap between the demands for new policy and service responses to such challenges as climate change, and the capacities of the public sector to respond sufficiently rapidly and effectively NESTA has established ‘ the LAB’ in 2008 to facilitate fresh thinking20. The LAB, which is a series of projects rather than a physical space, has three components: 17 HM Treasury. Transforming Government Procurement. January 2007. David Varney. Service Transformation: A better service for citizens and businesses, a better deal for the taxpayer. 2006; 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review 19 Bartholomeou, P. et al (2006) Report of Seven Focus Groups conducted for the Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organisations report. LSE Public Policy Group. 20 http://www.nesta.org.uk/the-lab-innovating-public-services/ 18 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 30 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies    Challenge Lab: explores how innovation can help services respond to critical social and economic issues, starting with ageing, climate change and health. Methods Lab: puts radical thinking into action and is where we test and assess the best ways of fostering public service innovation. The current focus projects are: risk capital; incubating social innovation, and; attacking the recession. Learning Lab: helps you to apply and spread what we learn. “NESTA has created the Lab to meet this need for new ideas that work. By bringing together experience and ingenuity from across the public, private and third sectors, and drawing on the insights of citizens and consumers, the Lab plays a vital role in making public services fit for the 21st century. The Lab provides the freedom, flexible capital and expertise to undertake radical experiments. It tests out new ways of finding and spreading the best ideas this might be by running a challenge prize, building a social ventures incubator, or creating powerful new teams of users, front-line staff and decision-makers.”21 2. The Scope of Innovation Initiatives and Activity The UK has a long history of public sector innovation from minor improvements in services to such initiatives as the formation of the BBC, Open University, the National Health Service. Innovations include those that increase efficiency, improvements in the quality of services, new services or ways of delivering services. Organisations draw on ideas for innovation from a wide range of sources but the major source in practice tends to be internal, particularly senior management – as is the perspective that arises from similar surveys in the private sector. The NAO survey of 27 government organisations found that 80% considered innovation to be ‘very important’ in meeting future challenges. However a wider consultation amongst staff indicated that many were less convinced of the importance of innovation and more inclined to see it as just another top-down cost cutting tool. A compilation of case studies for the 2009 NAO review of innovation-related performance is summarised below? Innovation Case Studies for the NAO (2009) report. 1 The department of Health: work to address the issue of stillbirth at Luton and Dunstable hospitals. 2 The Ministry of Justice’s Community Justice Program. 3 The Cabinet Office’s 21 Luton PCT’s analysis of recent stillbirths in its area showed a number of significant trends, and through engagement with local women they came up with a number of innovative changes to processes which were designed to reduce the number of stillbirths. The program aims to tackle crime and anti social behaviour by bringing all the criminal justice agencies together to learn which crimes most concern local people, provide information to local people and encourage the community to develop solutions to the problems. A Cabinet Office taskforce ran a competition which encouraged http://www.nesta.org.uk/the-lab-innovating-public-services/ Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 31 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Show Us a Better Way competition 4 The Environment Agency’s Flood Warning direct system. 5 The Higher Education Funding Council for the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF). 6 The Prison Service’s procurement of prison mattresses. 7 The Home Office’s IRIS border control system 8 The department for Work and Pensions’ Lean Program. 9 The Environment Agency’s Innovation 4 Efficiency team. 10 The Pension Service’s Pension Transformation Program. 11 BERR’s Business Support Simplification scheme. individuals to submit innovative ideas as to how government could make its data available to citizens in a more useful way. This system uses new technology to enable registered users to be notified of flood warnings in their area via their preferred means, such as by text message or e-mail. HEIF is a funding stream which encourages universities to engage with the wider world in innovative ways. universities are able to create their own plans for how they are to achieve this interaction. The use of an innovative procurement process allowed the private sector to develop innovative solutions to the Prison Service’s problem of the high cost of replacing prison mattresses. An innovation that results in registered passengers being processed more efficiently at UK airport borders. The solution is based on gates that scan individuals’ irises, which means that they do not have to interact with Immigration Officers. The concept of lean processing was initially developed in the automotive industry as a means of eliminating waste from the production cycle. The DWP are using it to see how their processes could be improved and made more efficient. This team provides a link between the science and operations functions of the Agency to provide innovative solutions to operational issues. They assist with the piloting and implementation of projects, and direct the Agency’s horizon scanning work into areas that would benefit operations most. This program is a process of complete business transformation in The Pension Service, covering everything that it does operationally, as well as some support services, in order to improve the service offered, and generate efficiencies. BERR embarked on a large scale project that set out to make it easier for businesses to engage with government by reducing the number of available support schemes from around 3,000 to around 30. NESTA has a substantial program of work under way to follow up on a recommendation of the Innovation Nation White Paper to strengthen innovation indicators and metrics. One aspect of that work includes the development of indicators for the public sector. A working paper commissioned by NESTA reviewed the literature on innovation in the public sector (and the wider innovation literature) and proposed a Public Sector Innovation Index based on 54 individual indicators, grouped into categories: R&D activities (8 indicators); consultancy and strategic alliances (4 indicators); intangible assets (4 indicators);ICT Infrastructure (7 indicators); human resources (8 indicators); institutional performance (8 indicators);e-government, online services (2 indicators); origin of innovations (6 indicators); innovation inputs (4 indicators);impacts and scope (3 indicators)22. LSE Public Policy Group (2008) Innovation in Government Organisations, Public Sector Agencies and Public Service NGOs. Innovation Index Working Paper NESTA. 22 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 32 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies To inform the development of policy an additional set of detailed case studies has been developed by the National School of Government in collaboration with the Young Foundation and NESTA23. These focus on service innovations as shown below: Case Studies of Innovation in the UK Public Sector. Innovation 1. Patient Opinion 2. Positive Futures 3. The Sure Start Program 4. Safer Routes to School 5. Keeping House 6. Community Support Officers 7. The Phoenix Development Fund 8. Creative Industry Networks 9. Patients Co-design Services; Experiencebased Design 10. Next Practice Education Program Description A user-generated website and independent, non-profit company, founded by a social entrepreneur, which enables patients to share opinions about their health care with the NHS and each other. An experimental approach to support youth sport in deprived areas, which are delivered through various local organisations. A program bringing together a range of agencies to support parents and young children, leading to several hundred local programs. Stimulated local action to develop safe routes to school, leading to local initiatives to improve safety. A local initiative to provide social care for older and disabled people. Police officers specifically for low level crime and anti-social behaviour. Fund to support enterprise in disadvantaged communities and social groups. Informal networks and intermediary organisations that link local interest groups in the art and creative industry communities. Mechanism to listen to patient views I the assessment and redesign of services. Developed by the Education department’s Innovation Unit the program facilitates links between schools and local authorities in order to support innovate practices and to disseminate the findings of these developments. Overall the selection of case studies tends to focus on new services and service improvements, with few examples of policy innovation. It appears that this is the result of selection bias. The recent NESTA initiative to establish the ‘Lab’ aims particularly at new policy development. 3. The Role of Information Technology as a major driver of Innovation There is surprisingly little discussion of the role of IT in the recent reviews of innovation in the UK public sector. The reviews focus on more generic issues. However, the rising significance of the internet had attracted strong interest from government. It was clear that the internet raised issues inter alia, regarding the reuse of information generated in the public sector, and regarding participation by the public sector in the new media. The internet is undoubtedly one of the most significant innovations of the modern era. In the UK internet usage grew from 9% of households in 1998 to almost 60% in 2006. 23 Su Maddock (2007) Creating the Conditions for Public Innovation. National School of Government; The Young Foundation and NESTA. p57 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 33 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies It became clear that:  new forms of large-scale self-help on public policy issues had been emerging online and gathering public attention;  new social and economic value were being created from public information using new technology;  government initiatives regarding the web had been ad hoc and had mixed effect;  The role for government and its capability were unclear.  There was little systematic information about these developments and their significance The Policy Review Building on progress: Public services had raised awareness in government regarding new forms of online activity: “The Government should support the development of new and innovative services that provide tailored advice to specific groups (for example the netmums.com website which provides a discussion and advice forum for mothers). These are outside government’s direct influence, but government has a role to play in supporting them – for example by ensuring that they are not undermined by government programs or websites with similar objectives, and have easy access to publicly available information.”24 Recognising these trends the government commissioned a report on the appropriate response by government. The independent reviewed25 recommended that government should respond to three particular challenges:  engaging in partnership with user-led online communities;  ensuring that it fully understands and responds appropriately to changes in the information market; and  advising civil servants on how best to participate in new media. After the Cross Cutting Review of the Knowledge Economy in 2000 the government established the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) as a regulator and an Information Asset Register was introduced26. Both the NHS and the National Library for Health work with user-led online communities to disseminate information from the NHS27. 24 HM Government (2007). Building on progress: Public services, p.38, available at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/policy_review/index.asp 25 Mayo, E. & Steinberg, T. (2007). The Power of Information: An independent review: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/publications/reports/power_information/power_information.pd f 26 HM Government (2000). Cross-cutting review of the knowledge economy, available at www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spending_review_2000/associated_documents/spend_ sr00_ad_ccrcontents.cfm 27 www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 34 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Following the Power of Information report in 2007, a Power of Information Task Force was created in 2008. This task force delivered its final report in 200928. The report identifies six where action is needed to improve the government’s use of digital technologies. Some of these are relevant to the broader public sector innovation agenda:     enhancing Digital Britons’ online experience by providing expert help from the public sector online where people seek it; creating a capability for the UK public sector to work with both internal and external innovators; improving the way government consults with the public; building capacity in the UK public sector to take advantage of the opportunities offered by digital technologies. For example, the report suggests extending to other areas of the public sector the BBC’s model for innovation in its ‘backstage’ service which encourages people to innovate by re-using the BBC’s data and services. The report recommends that UK central government should create a ‘backstage’ capability to unlock the innovation potential of the information held in government data bases. Recognising that when mainstreaming any innovation, systemic culture and behaviour change is required, the Taskforce makes the case for initiatives to bring into the mainstream of UK government the innovative approaches it recommends. The report therefore calls for action to help the public sector to acquire the new skills and practices required to support this. 4. Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector To promote innovation across the public sector DBIS has selected five focal areas29:  Creating the conditions for innovation by aligning the major forces of the public sector to be pro-innovative.  Leading innovation by promoting awareness at the highest levels of the importance of innovation and of the principal tools to support it.  Supporting and disseminating exemplars.  Drawing on all sources of innovation by engaging users and front-line staff and looking at innovation systems in the third sector, private sector, Devolved Administrations and public sectors in other countries.  Realising the potential of innovation as an enabling force in driving related policy initiatives. 28 29 http://poit.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/poit/2009/02/summary-final/ DIUS, March, 2008 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 35 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies 5. The UK Public Sector Context It is important to note that a number of initiatives have been introduced in the UK public sector that intersect with the innovation agenda30, these include:       Capability building and assessment (Departmental Capability Reviews, Comprehensive Performance Assessments, National School of Government, public sector academies). Procurement and efficiency (Efficiency Program, shared services). Focus on outcomes of public services (PSA targets, introducing contestability into service provision). Service transformation (electronic interface with citizens). Sustainability (Green Whitehall, published reports on performance). Well-being (public services as employers). It is also worth noting a point made in a comparative study of public sector innovation. This recent study of public sector innovation in four European countries found some marked differences between the smaller countries and the UK31: “… bigger country size of the UK leads to a larger and more complicated institutional set-up and services, which makes the innovation process more costly and, therefore, riskier. Risks can be allocated and confidence gained through the political demand and commitment to long-term major projects, strong top-management commitment and support, close cooperation with technology suppliers and future users, as well as just through better market (demand) knowledge, which all are relatively more important in the UK than in other countries. More important hampering factors in the UK are the lack of supportive strategy, stagnating organisational culture, rigid structures, and the existence of previous failures – all common issues to bigger countries. Moreover, even if not important in absolute terms, gaining social and political popularity as a goal of innovation was assessed slightly more important in the UK than in other countries. “p.122 6. Evidence of Improvement in Innovation Performance In preparing the 2009 report on innovation the National Audit Office conducted a survey of 27 government departments, held an online discussion with 120 front line public servants and carried out 11 case studies. The overall report concluded that the need for innovation is being emphasised more strongly by the highest levels of the public sector. The report found that many more organisations were establishing innovation units, conducting customer research and staff suggestion schemes. 30 See UK Design Council. Public Sector Innovation Workshop. December 2007. Ott Parna, O. and von Tunzelmann, N. (2007) Innovation in the public sector: Key features influencing the development and implementation of technologically innovative public sector services in the UK, Denmark, Finland and Estonia. Information Polity 12 (2007) 109–125 31 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 36 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies The NAO (2009) review concludes that government organisations are not systematically pursuing approaches to procurement that promote innovation. While there has been a series of initiatives to encourage government organisations to seek and use feedback from users, and many such organisations have introduced discussion groups, workshops, online communities, and message boards, the 2009 NAO review found little evidence of these having an impact on innovation32. The review’s findings in relation to progress in implementing their earlier recommendations provide some insight into performance: Progress in implementing recommendations from the 2006 NAO report. Summary of recommendation Summary of progress 1 Government should give more focus to fostering innovation in central government, particularly to improve productivity. There is more emphasis on innovation from the centre of government, and central government organisations consider the amount of innovation has increased. The Innovation Nation White Paper spells out the imperative for innovation in public services. Increasing efficiency is only one of the drivers for departments to innovate. 2 Departments need better data on where costs are incurred in their operations and on the costs of possible innovations. There are significant gaps in cost and performance reporting in government. At a project level good cost information has facilitated some innovation, while its absence has been a barrier. 3 Individual incentives to encourage managers in central government organisations to develop or promote innovations need to be improved. There is still a lack of incentives for managers to support innovation, but it is important to link these with organisational incentives. 4 Departments and agencies should ensure that they use piloting, smallscale testing, and quicker decisionmaking processes. Most innovations we examined used some form of piloting and testing. Those that did not recognise this would have been beneficial. 5 Central government organisations should strengthen their ability to learn from each other and from outside. Departments have put mechanisms in place to learn from outside, but the relatively small proportion of successful innovations generated from external sources indicates more can be done. 6 There should be mechanisms to seek ideas from staff, the front line, and customers. Mechanisms such as suggestion schemes generally exist, but there are remaining barriers to generating and developing ideas from frontline staff and customers. Source: UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9 In 2008 the Cabinet Office launched a new standard, Customer Service Excellence, to support customer focused service delivery. 32 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 37 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies 7. Lessons of Experience The National Audit Office examined innovation performance in its 2006 report Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organisations. It found that approaches tended to be, focused at the top level of organisations, ad hoc, there was little incentive for individual managers to take initiatives and that information on the costs and outcomes of innovation was generally not collected. It proposed more systematic approaches to these issues and to seeking ideas from front line staff, encouraging learning from other organisations, and using piloting for developing innovations. The development of new initiatives will inevitably mean that some will fail and most will need substantial modification before full implementation. A set of focus group discussions was convened by the LES Public Policy Group in 2006 in order to provide greater insight for the 2006 NAO report on innovation in central government33. These groups were composed of public servants and consultants who work with government. The groups felt that the perspective on innovation that came from the NAO survey of organisations tended to underplay the role of front line staff in innovation, but strongly supported the view that ideas needed support from senior managers if they were to progress, that change was particularly complex due to the cautious hierarchical approaches, lack of working across groups, that risk avoidance due to the fear of failure was a barrier, as was often a lack of clarity over costs and benefits (due to having a range of objectives). The 2009 report of the NAO makes observations on the barriers and opportunities for innovation, and identifies a range of ‘lessons’ based on its case studies, surveys and focus group discussions. The figure below, drawn from the survey carried out for the 2009 NAO report identifies the factors considered to support or hinder innovation in the public sector: Factors considered to help and hinder innovation This Figure looks at factors that help or hinder innovation. The list moves from those are viewed more as a major or minor help to those that are regarded as neither a help nor a hindrance, to those that are a hindrance.  The number of innovative or creative individuals in the organisation  Efficiency savings targets  The organisation’s approach to researching, developing, testing and piloting programmes that may not be rolled out more widely  Three year budgets  The quality of your organisation’s financial and performance information  The organisation’s attitude towards risk  Departmental capability reviews  External review by the National Audit Office  Internal review, for example, by internal audit  The organisation’s history of managing organisational or operational change 33 Bartholomeou, P. et al (2006) Report of Seven Focus Groups conducted for the Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organisations report. LSE Public Policy Group. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 38 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies               PSA targets/ Departmental Strategic Objectives The capability of the organisation’s main suppliers to provide innovative solutions Media coverage of innovative projects A review by the Departmental Select Committee Treasury guidance on the evaluation of business cases, including the ‘Green Book’ The workforce’s attitude towards change The Varney Review on service transformation Public procurement rules and guidelines A hearing of the Committee of Public Accounts External review by another audit or regulatory body Treasury guidance on risk management, including the ‘Orange Book’ The attitude to risk of my organisation’s delivery partners The role of innovation in the organisation’s performance assessment criteria The attitude to risk of my organisation’s sponsoring body Source:UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15 The report suggests that the case studies of recent innovations show34:  good performance and cost information can help identify where innovation is needed and would be beneficial;  customer insight can be used to identify areas for innovation and possible solutions;  technological innovations can be applied to service delivery to generate efficiency and service improvements;  engaging with suppliers and delivery partners can help bring about innovation;  innovation can be a means to greater organisational efficiency;  taking a structured approach can help ideas from frontline staff flourish; and  good project management, use of piloting and risk management disciplines are important to success. The analysis of the case studies also provided the basis for identifying the issues that need to be addressed to ensure the successful delivery of innovative projects. These are:  Involving service users, suppliers and citizens in the development of innovation.  Good management information to allow scope for innovation to be identified and make the case for adopting and rolling out an innovative approach. 34 UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 39 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies  Openness to identifying opportunities from outside the organisation, including new technology, ideas tried elsewhere or opportunities for partnership.  The role of leaders in endorsing the development of ideas.  Change management and project management skills to ensure success. A key part of this is securing buy-in from staff throughout the organisation.  Learning from testing and piloting when trying something new, and quickly identifying what is not working.  A good understanding of risks, including risks of not innovating. Source: National Audit Office analysis of innovation case examples The case studies and surveys also provided the basis for identifying the critical success factors, as seen by the NAO, at the departmental level35:  Leaders have a good understanding about, and communicate, what innovation means in relation to the organisation’s objectives, where innovation is needed, and what they expect staff to do.  Individual and organisational targets and objectives create incentives that focus leaders and staff throughout the organisation on continuous and radical improvement and which are outcome based (as opposed to prescribing how they do their jobs) so as to give flexibility in allowing for innovative responses.  Staff are given the time and resources to develop innovative ideas and available funding is used to support innovations being tested, piloted and rolled out where there are demonstrable benefits to be achieved.  The organisation responds to customer feedback and develops innovations with suppliers.  Innovations are delivered effectively, risks are well managed, the signs of failure are quickly acted upon, and staff support is secured for changes in processes.  Measures of success are in place for individual innovations and there are mechanisms for learning lessons from successful and failed projects.  There are systems in place for disseminating what works, to other parts of the organisation and other delivery bodies, and for adopting innovative ideas developed elsewhere. These are underpinned by budgets, senior management direction and incentives. The 2009 NAO review concluded that government organisations could go much further in encouraging suppliers to propose innovative solutions. Drawing on this review and previous work by NAO the review report highlighted several ‘lessons learned about procuring for better outcomes’:  Suppliers may be discouraged from innovating if they do not acquire the intellectual property rights that result. - there was a 35 UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 40 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies need to balance capturing as much of the value of an innovation for the taxpayer, while giving the supplier sufficient incentive to innovate.  The type of contract involved is significant. contracts specifying detailed, frequently changing short- term annual work programs meant suppliers did not have incentives to innovate in order to provide longterm value for money.  Specify the desired end-point. -innovation can result from specifying the desired end-point, but relying on the supplier to conduct the research and development necessary to define the technical solution.  Use a whole life costing approach. whole life costing is a systematic approach of balancing capital costs with revenue costs to achieve an optimum solution over a project’s life Overall perspective on progress from the 2009 Report36 The overall recommendations of the 2009 NAO report provide an overall perspective on progress and the directions for improvement. These are:  The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills currently has no means for measuring the impact of its policies or other central government initiatives on innovation. “DIUS should develop these sources into a tool to track departmental innovation, including progress against all the recommendations.”  Confusion about the purpose of innovation prevents government organisations taking opportunities to innovate. “At a local level, organisations and managers do not see how innovation fits in with their other priorities…DIUS should agree with the Cabinet Office and Treasury what role innovation is expected to play in achieving overarching objectives … The centre of government should then collectively articulate a clearer message across …that innovation can help departments achieve their own strategic objectives, and that frontline staff can be empowered to make improvements.”  Few central government organisations have considered strategically where they need innovation or how to encourage and support it. “Departments need to develop plans which set out their own priorities and the means by which innovation will be facilitated, including how they will use management information, horizon scanning and customer feedback to identify specific areas for innovation….DIUS should assist departments in developing these strategies and should highlight and spread good practice.”  Most current innovation is generated and driven by senior management, and central government organisations need to do more to develop ideas from the frontline, users and suppliers. “Departments are prepared to learn and seek ideas from staff working at 36 Source:UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 41 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies the frontline, suppliers and service users, but these sources are not being fully exploited…. Where central government organisations have a portfolio of innovations at any one time, not all of which are expected to succeed, leaders need to make clear it is acceptable for a project to fail, providing that lessons are learned from it.. Departments should experiment with different mechanisms to encourage frontline staff to play an active role in innovation, supporting the message from leaders by trialling incentives, including reward schemes, budgeting for outcomes and using innovation units to provide time, resources and expert support for the development of ideas… DIUS and its delivery partners such as the National School of Government should demonstrate the benefits of innovation by drawing together and promoting successful practice in the above areas and support departments in adopting the best innovations.”  Innovative projects have had to overcome structural and cultural barriers and need access to support and expertise to succeed. “Some departments have innovation units or similar support, but awareness amongst staff of what they can offer is low. They should be used to select promising ideas which meet priorities, provide time and resources for developing those ideas, help with the development of business cases…. DIUS should support its delivery bodies such as NESTA, the Design Council, and the Sunningdale Institute (via their Whitehall Hub for Innovation) to identify and fill gaps in provision of support mechanisms across the public sector.” 8. Sources 1. Comptroller and Auditor General (2006) Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organisations. National Audit Office. HC 1447-1 Session 20052006. 2. LSE Public Policy Group (2008) Innovation in Government Organisations, Public Sector Agencies and Public Service NGOs. Innovation Index Working Paper NESTA. 3. Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15 4. Bartholomeou, P. et al (2006) Report of Seven Focus Groups conducted for the Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organisations report. LSE Public Policy Group. 5. UK Audit Commission (2007) Seeing the Light: Innovation in Local Public Services. Audit Commission National Report. 6. Audit Commission & Improvement and Development Agency. Audit Commission and IDeA Competition: Innovation in Local Public Services. Mulgan, G. and Albury, D. (2003): Innovation in the Public Sector, Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, October 2003 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 42 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies 7. Brannan, T., Durose, C., John, P. & Wolman, H. (2006) ‘Assessing Best Practice as a means of Innovation’, available at: www.ipeg.org. uk/papers/UAA%20paperfi nal%2017%20Apr il%2006.pdf 8. Hartley, J. (2006) ‘Innovation and improvement in Local Government’ availableat www.ipeg.org.uk/presentations/bp_jean__hartley_pres.pdf?PHPSESSID=f3f 227c19c18b 31719e4b0c170ce2489 9. Comptroller and Auditor General (2000) Supporting Innovation: Managing Risk in Government Departments. HC 864 1999-2000. 10.Curry, A. (1999) Innovation in Public Service Management (Case Study). Managing Service Quality. 9(3): 180-190 11.Public Innovation Conference - 1 November 2007http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/innovation/index.asp 12.Public sector innovation workshop: 11 December 2007. Hosted by Design Council. http://www.dius.gov.uk/reports_and_publications%20HIDDEN/innovation_ nation/~/media/publications/I/Innovation_public 13.Cowper, J. et al (1997) Performance Benchmarking In The Public Sector: The United Kingdom Experience OECD, Paris. (Web Version: http://www.oecd.org/puma/pac/pubs/ben97.htm) Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 43 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies B.2 Canada 1. Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector. Drivers There are many drivers that are leading to an increased emphasis on innovation in the Canadian public service. “The public sector faces high levels of client expectations for services, evolving service delivery models that require new skill sets and higher levels of knowledge for frontline workers, and financial constraints. Just when organizations most need a strong, dedicated workforce to meet service and fiscal demands, the workforce is shifting and decades of knowledge and experience are starting to head out the door. The challenge is how to attract, retain and engage employees to achieve high levels of organizational performance.“37 A major driver of innovation in federal government has been the pressure on budgets due to revenue declines in the 1990s. The focus has remained on improving efficiency and service quality while containing expenditure. According to Glor the approach through the 1990s centred on cost saving through cutting functions, reducing support to third parties, introducing user fees and to privatise or form partnerships to maintain functions which could be financed by users38: “The Department of Fisheries and Oceans did more with less: it retired ships, double-crewed some ships and transferred ships among regions, leading to a 10% increase in sea days, a 24% increase in efficiency, and a $1 million reduction in annual operating costs (IPAC, 1993). Improved service through greater use of computers and the Internet have been emphasized in Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada. A paper burden reduction initiative has led to redesign of the Record of Employment, cutting the number of forms from six to two, and reducing employers’ costs by $100 million a year. The first paperless court was introduced in Canada in the federal Competition Tribunal (internationally, a paperless court had previously been introduced in the Netherlands)”: Glor (2006) p118 Organisations, Strategies and Programs The Treasury Board has been perhaps the key organisation in promoting innovation and an important foundation for continuing initiatives to promote innovation in the Canadian Public sector has been the Treasury Board publication Results for Canadians in 2000 which signalled an attempt link whole-ofgovernment performance management and performance management systems 37 IT in Canada (2009) Employee Engagement: A foundation for organizational performance. http://www.itincanada.ca 38 Glor 2006)A Gardener Innovator’s Guide to Innovating in Organisations. www.innovation.cc/books/guide_innovate_organization.pdf Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 44 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies within departments39. The policy emphasised that responsible spending recognized that rational priority setting and investment decisions need “integrated, cross departmental information on expenditures and results.” (p. 13). This framework has been further developed in subsequent performance reporting guidelines issues by the Treasury Board40. A major focus for innovation, although not a broad innovation strategy itself, has been service improvement: “Over the past decade, the Canadian public sector has undertaken a remarkable journey in service improvement, from research to results. This journey has made Canada an acknowledged world leader in public sector service delivery. It has allowed the Government of Canada to make dramatic gains in service results, overtaking the provincial level and even closing the gap with the municipal level in service reputation. The service performance of many Canadian public sector organizations now surpasses private sector results and benchmarks. The roots of this success are traced to citizen-centred “action research” initiatives, beginning in the late-1990s, that laid the foundation for service improvement strategies based on empirical knowledge of citizen expectations and priorities, including the “drivers” of citizen satisfaction with public sector service delivery. Action research approaches have also created innovative common measurement tools and pan-public sector institutions for ongoing research, benchmarking and collaborative, citizen-centred service improvement initiatives. Canadian experience over the past decade shows how public management reform initiatives can and should be rooted in solid research, how building communities of practice can establish platforms for change across the public sector, and how a results-based, “outside-in” approach to public management can transform the performance of the public sector.” p.641 In 2000 the PSSDC created the Institute for Citizen-Centred Service (ICCS), which was co-funded by federal-provincial Council of Chief Information Officers (PSCIOC), in order to develop a shared platform for research, benchmarking and the diffusion of best practice. An example of the work of the ICCS is in training and certification: “.. research has been undertaken by the ICCS in response to an interest across the Canadian public sector in developing common approaches to training and certifying service managers and staff. This priority for action was identified by Deputy Ministers of single-window agencies meeting for 39 Treasury Board (200) Results for Canadians. Treasury Board. Canada See for example: Canada. Treasury Board. (2007a). Policy on Management Resources and Results Structure (MRRS): Why is it important for public performance reporting? Retrieved June 24, 2007. from at http://www.tbs‐sct.gc.ca/presentations/rma‐dpr/poli/page01_e.asp 41 Marson, B. & Heintzman, R. (2009) From Research to Results: A Decade of Results-Based Service Improvement in Canada. New Directions Series. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada.. The development of service improvement is also discussed in Gow, J. (205) Quality Management and Organisational Innovation in Canada. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. 11(1). 40 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 45 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies the first time in Victoria in June 2006. Based on this identified need, the ICCS initiated a research study of training and certification needs across the public sector in Canada, and concluded that a professional certification program should be created for public managers, incorporating much of the accumulated research into citizens’ needs and into best practices in service delivery, created over the past decade. The pilot phase of this certification program was launched by the ICCS in 2008.” p.2942 Hence, the focus of broad initiatives has been on service improvement rather than innovation per se. However, while there is little evidence of an integrated innovation strategy, there are several key innovation related initiatives in which government participates – but does not initiate or manage. These are:  Innovation Awards An important mechanism for promoting innovation in the Canadian Public Sector has been the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) awards for innovation. These were established in 1990 and are sponsored by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and IBM43. The IPAC awards have attracted well over 1500 entries from all three levels of government. Galimberti comments: “The IPAC Award for Innovative Management has brought to light many of the exciting public sector innovations taking place among all orders of government in Canada. In so doing it has facilitated the process of change and the spreading of new ideas and best practices across Canada and internationally. An unexpected result has been its contribution to the scholarly literature and to the teaching of public administration, a result that has also helped to promote change and the replication of public sector innovations.”44 p.9  Innovation Toolkits The Canada School of Public Service is a semi-independent school which reports to the President of the Treasury Board, through a Board of Governors made up of representatives of the private and public sectors. The school has developed an impressive and comprehensive ‘toolkit’ to support public sector innovation: Organising for Deliberate Innovation: A toolkit for teams, which is available on-line. 45  Best Practice Diffusion The Institute of Public Administration of Canada's SmartTape Centre for Marson, B. & Heintzman, R. (2009) From Research to Results: A Decade of Results-Based Service Improvement in Canada. New Directions Series. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada 43 The annual cost of the IPAC awards is only about C$30,000, most of which is met by the sponsors. Galimberti , J. (2003) Chronicling public sector renewal in Canada:the IPAC Award for Innovative Management. VII Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Lisboa, Portugal, 8-11 Oct. 2002 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/CLAD/clad0043605.pdf 44 Ibid. 45 http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/cat/det-eng.asp?courseno=C342E 42 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 46 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Regulatory Innovation provides a window on the developments in regulatory practice and the scholarly analysis of those innovations46. Its resources include the outcomes of research on innovation, case studies of innovation in Canadian government. The Centre also organises seminars and courses, and provides information on other relevant conferences.  Risk Management and Innovation The Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation (CCAF) is a publicprivate sector partnership, organised as a national non-profit foundation and established in 1980, whose members are largely public sector finance and audit agencies and private sector accounting and auditing organisations. CCAF’s aims to promote excellence in public sector governance, management and accountability. In 2007, the CCAF Board of Governors chose Innovation, Risk and Control as the focus of the organisation's next major research initiative. The project continued through 2008, consulting widely on guiding principles and identifying best practices. The program led to the development of a discussion paper47, Taking Chances: Finding Ways to Embrace Innovation, Risk and Control in the Public Sector Organizations, and a conference in November, 2008, Symposium on Innovation, Risk Management and Control.48 Glor has attempted to characterise innovation in the Canadian federal and provincial governments and suggests that, on the basis of identified innovations over the 1960 -2000 period, the federal government has been more “..a dissemination facilitator or innovation champion” than an innovator. According to Glor some of the provinces (particularly Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia) have been active adopters of the ‘New Public Management’ and have introduced many related policy innovations. 49. In the appropriate conditions innovation can be a by-product of programs to improve service and improve efficiency. According to Joyce (2007) the 2004 Expenditure Review established by a Committee of Cabinet stimulated some significant program innovations: “While innovation was not an explicit objective of either of these two review processes, it provided the stimulus for finalizing specific proposals and a receptive process in which these proposals could be considered and a decision on whether to implement them made.” Npn. A survey carried out in 1999 indicated that developing greater innovativeness in the Canadian public sector faced considerable grass roots challenges: “ less than half of public servants feel that they are encouraged to be innovative or take initiative, have a say in decisions and actions that impact their work, get help from immediate supervisors or department in determining learning needs or 46 http://www.smarttape.ca/SmartTape http://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/IRCSymposium/english/IRC-TakingChances.pdf 48 http://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/IRCSymposium/english/IRC-SymposiumProceedings.pdf 49 Glor 2006)A Gardener Innovator’s Guide to Innovating in Organisations. www.innovation.cc/books/guide_innovate_organization.pdf 47 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 47 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies career development support or have had a promotion or believe they have a fair chance of getting one. Only 37% think senior management will try to resolve these concerns.”50 2. The Scope of Innovation Initiatives and Activity The available evidence suggests that much of the innovation activity has been in improving service delivery. Establishing the organisational arrangements, partnerships and policies that enabled that involved a great deal of organisational and policy innovation. The implementation of the service improvement also involved extensive use of IT. Two important innovations in Canada were actively developed and promoted by the Service and Innovation Sector51 of the Treasury Board Secretariat. One major innovation in Canada in 2005, which has attracted international attention, was the formation of a new department, Service Canada as a ‘one stop’ point for citizens to receive all government services, via telephone internet or in person. In developing this innovation similar models around the world, including Australia’s Centrelink, were reviewed. The Treasury Board Secretariat was also the central player in the development of Government On-Line, as a tool for service delivery. The implementation took six years, cost C$880m and involved collaboration with 34 participating departments and agencies, who also funded their own participation52. The ‘Government-on-Line’ project has developed into a comprehensive strategy to provide integrated services and to develop partnerships across both government departments and agencies and the private and voluntary sectors53. Looking at submissions to the IPAC awards over the 1990-2003 period Galimberti suggests that most involved new organisational forms or processes or new service delivery (particularly involving greater empowerment toward the end of the service chain and more partnerships with third parties, eg citizen centred approaches). Most were in some way IT enabled. He comments that few of the submissions involved new policy innovations, despite attempts by IPAC to encourage such submissions, although in recent years there has been some increase in policy-related innovations54. 50 Federal Public Service Employee Survey (1999) quoted in Teofilovic (2002), p15. This unit was closed following a 2003 Expenditure Review. 52 Joyce (2007); and Tan, K. C. & Mechling, J. (2007) Service Canada – A New Paradigm in Government Service Delivery. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. 53 Teofilovic, N. (2008) The Reality of Innovation in Government. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Journal Volume 7, No. 3, 2002www.innovation.cc/peerreviewed/reality.pdf p.12 54 Galimberti , J. (2003) Chronicling public sector renewal in Canada:the IPAC Award for Innovative Management. VII Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Lisboa, Portugal, 8-11 Oct. 2002 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/CLAD/clad0043605.pdf 51 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 48 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies The Canadian federal government’s Public Sector Award of Excellence program provides some (limited) perspective on the characteristics of innovation activity. Overall several years there have been few awards for policy or program innovation. Glor suggests that this is because the focus of innovation effort has been on streamlining and cost reduction55. Combing the finalists from 2005 and 2006, 23 out of the 31 finalists were special teams or existing work units and eight were individuals. Over half, 17 of 31, involved the innovative use or adaptation of existing information technology systems, 11 involved changes to processes or procedures. Drawing on the detailed research by Borins that compared the IPAC award submissions with those of the much larger Kennedy School of Government, Galimberti noted that:  “Applicants said that what made their program innovative was a system approach, co-ordinating the activities of a number of organizations or providing multiple services to a target population; these characteristics were found in 55% of the Canadian applications and 61% of the US applications.  The most frequent initiators of innovations were career public servants (55% Canada, and 48% US) rather than politicians and agency heads leading to Borins’ notion of “local heroes”.  The most frequent catalysts for innovation were internal problems found equally in Canada and the United States about 50% of the time.  Political initiatives were seen as a catalyst in about 20% of the cases in both countries followed by new leadership in less than 10% of the cases.  With respect to whether innovations are achieved through careful planning or “groping along”, comprehensive planning alone was cited in 56% of the US cases compared to 42% in Canada;“groping along” occurred in 27% of the US cases compared to 24% in Canada.  Obstacles to innovations in both countries arise primarily within the public sector rather than at the political level or the external environment.  Tactics used to overcome obstacles were similar in both Canada and the United States namely: persuasion (demonstrating benefits, demonstration projects and marketing), accommodation (consultation, training, cooptation /buy-in, compensating losers, making the program culturally or linguistically sensitive.  About 88% of the awards in Canada have received some media attention compared to 46% in the US.  A total of 61% of the Canadian sample has been replicated internationally compared with 42% of the US.” p.956 Glor 2006)A Gardener Innovator’s Guide to Innovating in Organisations. www.innovation.cc/books/guide_innovate_organization.pdf 56 Galimberti , J. (2003) Chronicling public sector renewal in Canada:the IPAC Award for Innovative Management. VII Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del 55 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 49 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies 3. The Role of Information Technology as a major driver of Innovation IT has clearly had a systemic role in much public sector innovation in Canada. According to Galimberti technology has played a part in almost all of the IPAC award submissions received. IT applications for electronic transactions and for electronic kiosks have been common57. The more extensive use of IT has been a major driver of innovation in the Canadian government. Teofilovic suggests that the widespread use of IT in the private sector transformed expectations of the government services58. The government response began with a strategy ‘blueprint’ paper in 1994. Teofilovic suggests that, while there have been comprehensive programs to introduce IT based service innovations, there has been no overarching federal strategy to address grass roots organisational change, through, for example greater empowerment, leadership and intra and inter-departmental collaboration. Initiatives introduced by Human Resources Development Canada and by the Treasury Board Secretariat in the late 1990s have focused on developing capabilities in managers, and providing guidelines, for balancing accountability and decision making scope. Canada has been particularly active in using IT to deliver new and improved services. Two reports by Statistics Canada indicate the public sector is an active user of IT. A 2002 report based on an analysis of trends over 1998-2000 found that, standardised by size, public sector organisations were more likely to have implemented technological change than were private sector organisations. The education and health service sectors were particularly active. This performance was in part driven by the Y2K, but the report suggests that e-government was also a major driver59. The 2004 study again found little difference between the public and private sector in the rates of adoption of new technology. The study also found that the public sector was more likely to develop training programs as part of the IT implementation process. Over half of the public sector IT adoption Estado y de la Administración Pública, Lisboa, Portugal, 8-11 Oct. 2002 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/CLAD/clad0043605.pdf 57 Galimberti , J. (2003) Chronicling public sector renewal in Canada:the IPAC Award for Innovative Management. VII Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Lisboa, Portugal, 8-11 Oct. 2002 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/CLAD/clad0043605.pdf 58 Teofilovic, N. (2008) The Reality of Innovation in Government. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Journal Volume 7, No. 3, 2002www.innovation.cc/peerreviewed/reality.pdf 59 Earl L. (2002) Innovation and Change in the Public Sector: A seeming oxymoron. Survey of Electronic Commerce and Technology, 2000. Statistics Canada. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 50 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies projects involved substantial customisation of technology or essentially the development of new technology in-house.60 According to Teofilovic many departments were receptive to the application of IT for service improvement: “The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) offers a variety of electronic services, including the web capacity to file income tax returns and business tax payments. Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) has established an interactive website entitled “Job Futures 2000.” Industry Canada’s “SchoolNet” is another example of technological innovation in government. Currently, SchoolNet’s promises to champion lifelong learning and create world-class educational resources on-line by providing increased access to high-speed broadband Internet service for businesses, schools and residents in all Canadian communities. With the recent 2001 Budget, the federal government demonstrated its commitment to this mandate by allocating $110 million to continue work on improving access to the Internet broadband network (also known as CA*net4).” 61 4. Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector The Treasury Board has established the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). This identifies the indicators and associated measures linked to sound management. The MAF is a tool to measure management improvement and to report the state of management performance across the public service. 62 Benchmarking has become an increasingly important tool in driving performance improvement. The Canada Revenue Agency benchmarks its performance with such organisations as the Florida Department of Revenue.63 Organisations including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Service Canada use the Common Measurements Tool (CMT) as a systematic framework for assessing performance.64 Some others use the organisational performance framework of the Center for Organizational Excellence at the University of Texas.65 One focus of initiatives has been employee engagement. Following a review of the issues the Treasury Board launched a strategy to improve workplace wellbeing to improve retention and increase engagement.66 60 Earl, L. (2004) Technological Change in the Public Sector, 2000-2002. Working Paper. Statistics Canada. 61 Teofilovic, N. (2008) The Reality of Innovation in Government. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Journal Volume 7, No. 3, 2002www.innovation.cc/peerreviewed/reality.pdf p.12 62 (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/index-eng.asp). 63 http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/report/performance_measures_fy200708_q3.pdf) 64 http://www.iccs-isac.org/en/cmt/benchmarking.htm 65 (http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/survey/site/) 66 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/faq/wbmt-eng.asp Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 51 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies 5. The Canadian Public Sector Context The federal structure of the Canadian system of government means that many functions are performed by provincial government or jointly by the federal and provincial governments. A foundation for much innovation in service delivery has been the development of ‘alternative service delivery (ASD), which was an innovation responding to the realities of a large dispersed country with a federal structure. This foundation has enabled a great deal more flexibility and innovation, particularly involving horizontal and vertical collaboration across government. 67 Brodtrick summarises the stages of reform in the Canadian public sector, which forms a background to the current context, in terms of five phases, as shown below. Phases of Reform in the Canadian Public Sector    1960s: Glassco Commission The structure of control is impressive, but good management consists of more than the avoidance of sin The defects in government / PS are the consequence of outmoded concepts of public administration “Let the managers manage!”  1970s: Lambert Commission The serious malaise pervading the management of government stems fundamentally from a grave weakening in the chain of accountability Managers should be required to manage in better ways “Make the managers manage!”  1980s: Auditor General Recognizes Constraints Why do serious managerial weaknesses persist, in spite of conscientious efforts to overcome them? Managers are constrained by political priorities, administrative regulations and systemic disincentives. “Recognize the constraints to managers!”      1990s: Public Service 2000 Intent: Renewal of the Public Service of Canada to be innovative and dynamic, and to develop the talent needed for the 21st century “Help the managers manage!”    2000s: Modern Comptrollership The Government of Canada adopted a strategy of continuous change The change is in management practices, and in management culture Designed to be a concept of co-evolution with a changing environment and society  Brodtrick, O. (2007) Searching for High Performance in Rule-Bound Systems: Tensions between Innovation and Accountability . A presentation to IPAC CEPMA Wilkins J. (2002) Learning from Canadian Innovations in Alternative Service Delivery. CAPAM Biennial Conference. 2002. 67 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 52 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies An important aspect of the public service in Canada is the role of Special Operating Agencies (SOAs). The Treasury Board Secretariat define SOAs as "operational organizations within existing departmental structures which deliver services, as distinct as providing policy advice to ministers". “SOAs were first created federally in 1989, and there are now 19 of them. They report through a Deputy Minister to a Minister. Each operates under a departmentally approved business plan and a defined framework document laying out target commitments for service levels and financial performance. Each SOA negotiates its own unique administrative flexibility, which generally needs approval from Treasury Board. After almost ten years, with only 6,000 employees (3% of the public service), these 19 SOAs remain relatively peripheral to the mainstream public service. Service Agencies represent a more significant development in terms of public sector reform. They are described as mission-driven, client-oriented organizations established under agency-specific legislation to manage the delivery of services within the federal government.”68 The SOAs are intended to provide more responsive and streamlined operations and to partner with provincial administrations. Wilkins comments that alternative service delivery, of which SOAs are a part, “..helps sustain a public service performance culture by reflecting traditions of moderation, incrementalism, and diversity in institutional structures and incentives.”69 However, the discussion in the November, 2008, Symposium on Innovation, Risk Management and Control, suggested that the era of cost cutting in the 1990s had led to looser controls and rising administration problems. But, by the beginning of the 21st Century the pendulum has swung back to instituting more rigorous control and reporting requirements to address the problems that had arisen. It was suggested that these more rule-bound approaches resulted in the barriers to innovation actually increasing70. 6. Evidence of Improvement in Innovation Performance Systematic evidence of improved innovation performance does not appear to be available. However, there is a good deal of evidence that a range of initiatives (discussed above) have substantially improved the flexibility of the public sector in terms of service development and delivery. There is also a good deal of evidence (also discussed in Section 1 above) that there is stronger awareness of the competencies and approaches that support innovation. As noted above, there is a good deal of evidence that service improvement has been the focus of much innovation in the public sector in Canada. It also appears 68 Armstrong, J. and Ford, R. (2002) Public Sector Innovations and Public Interest Issues. Discussion Paper The Innovation Journal. http://www.innovation.cc/discussionpapers/ps-innovation-public-interest.htm 69 Wilkins J. (2002) Learning from Canadian Innovations in Alternative Service Delivery. CAPAM Biennial Conference. 2002. 70 http://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/IRCSymposium/english/IRC-SymposiumProceedings.pdf Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 53 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies to have been the focus on initiatives to promote innovation. A recent review of the development of service improvement in Canada concludes71: “Until 1997 Canada had undertaken a variety of practices to improve public sector service delivery. However, few if any governments or agencies could demonstrate real and consistent results. The initiatives since 1997 have given Canadian governments the tools and platforms both to measure results and to improve them dramatically, from the citizens’ perspective. At an individual agency level, at an individual government level and at the pan-public-sector level, Canada can now demonstrate dramatically higher levels of citizen satisfaction with government service delivery.”p.34 One study of organisational and managerial innovations provides evidence that, driven in large part by budget constraints, the introduction of flexible workplace practices (multi-skilling, job enrichment, self directed work teams, employee suggestions, quality circles) in the Canadian public sector has been higher than in the Canadian private sector72 7. Lessons of Experience This study has not been able to identify an integrated and comprehensive strategy to promote innovation across the Canadian public sector. Consequently, it is not clear how the ‘lessons’ from programs that, directly or indirectly, promote innovation can be drawn together. However, the lessons from the sustained efforts to improve service performance have been identified. A comprehensive review of the policies and strategies that have enabled the sustained improvement in services details the sequential development of the organisations that supported these developments. A key organisation has been the Public Sector Service Delivery Council (PSSDC), involving federal and provincial collaboration. Over the past decade the PSSDC has had three leadership roles:  collaborative research  collaborative learning, and  collaborative service improvement.73 The recent review of the development of service improvement in Canada suggests that the keys to the success of the service improvement strategies have been “..the implementation of: 71 Marson, B. & Heintzman, R. (2009) From Research to Results: A Decade of Results-Based Service Improvement in Canada. New Directions Series. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada. 72 Lonti, Z. & Verma, A. (2003) The Determinants of Flexibility and Innovation in the Government Worplace: Recent Evidence from Canada. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 13 (3): 283-310. 73 Marson, B. & Heintzman, R. (2009) From Research to Results: A Decade of Results-Based Service Improvement in Canada. New Directions Series. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada..p18. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 54 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies  Communities of practice – networks, councils and an inter-governmental Institute – to provide the necessary organizational platforms for collaborative work.  Action research focused on obtaining feedback from citizens that can be quickly translated by public managers into service improvements that citizens want and notice, including single windows, electronic gateways and service clusters;  Service improvement methods that focus rigorously on the “drivers” of citizen satisfaction with government service delivery;  Common measurement tools and surveys that facilitate comparative benchmarking and results measurement.”74 A forum organised by the Office of the Auditor General and the Public Policy Forum in 1998 discussed the constraints on innovation in the public sector at that time. The background paper for the forum identified the key constraints as75:  Accountability -“there is a perception that public servants who make mistakes, even if under the orders of their superiors, will pay a heavy price” (pp. 5-6).  Empowerment 1 –“the current environment in the public service is not conducive to creating the dynamic, fluid context needed to foster innovation and risk taking among managers and staff in government” (p. 6).  Empowerment 2 – “on the other side of the coin, unfortunately, when the concept of empowerment was first introduced into government culture, it was sometimes perceived as conferring the right to break the rules” (p. 6).  Capacity – more rather than less – “managers are still being asked to ‘do new with less’ without being given the required support” (p. 7).  Values and Ethics – it takes time – “heroic efforts will be required to counteract the effects of the disbelief system on the attitudes of executives and staff towards risk-taking” (p. 8). Comments by Joyce (2007) suggest that not all of these problems have been overcome: “Of concern almost a decade later is that a number of these factors remain prevalent today... accountability and blame remains an issue for public servants as does the risk, real or apparent, in accepting empowerment. Both the Prime 74 Marson, B. & Heintzman, R. (2009) From Research to Results: A Decade of Results-Based Service Improvement in Canada. New Directions Series. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada. 75 Joyce (2007) and Public Policy Forum. (1998b). Innovation in the Federal Government: the risk not taken. (discussion paper prepared as a background document for a roundtable discussion to be held on behalf of the Office of the Auditor General). Retrieved June 29, 2007. from http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/dpmenu_e.html. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 55 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Minister and the President of the Treasury Board have identified the need to rebalance the current ‘web of rules’ (Canada. Treasury Board, 2007c). In the wake of a number of expenditure reduction exercises over the last five years, capacity remains a concern in some areas. More fundamentally, the concern over the effect on innovation of negative Auditor General reports that stimulated the roundtable … still exists.” Research for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Finding Common Ground, 2006)76 and other similar research found that employee engagement was a key factor in organisational performance and that the most common drivers of employee engagement were:  management effectiveness  colleagues/work unit  understanding of and support for the organization's vision, goals, mandate  career progress and development  quality of supervision  autonomy: having the authority to make needed work-related decisions  workload. Following a review of the role of performance information in innovation in the Canadian public sector, Joyce comments that more research is needed into innovation in government, and that more appropriate performance information would contribute to clearer assessment of the case for and impacts of innovation.77 8. Sources 1. Armstrong, J. and Ford, R. (2002) Public Sector Innovations and Public Interest Issues. Discussion Paper The Innovation Journal. http://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/ps-innovation-publicinterest.htm 2. Borins, Sandford “Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers.” Public Administration Review 60:6 (November-December 2000). 498-507. 3. Borins, Sandford “Public management innovation awards in the US and Canada.” In Herman Hill and Helmut Klages, eds. Trends in Public Service Renewal. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995. 4. Borins, Sandford “Public Sector Innovation: Its Contribution to Canadian Competitiveness.” Discussion Paper Series. Government and Competitiveness, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. 1994. 76 See also: Schmidt, F., 2004, Workplace Well-Being in the Public Sector - A Review of the Literature and the Road Ahead www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/hr-rh/wlbpseeoppfps/documents/WorkplaceWell-Being.pdf). 77 Joyce (2007) Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 56 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies 5. Borins, Sandford The Challenge of Innovating in Government. Arlington, VA.: The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government, 2001. 6. Borins, Sandford. Innovating with Integrity: How Local Heroes are Transforming American Government. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998. 7. Galimberti , J. (2003) Chronicling public sector renewal in Canada:the IPAC Award for Innovative Management. VII Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administración Pública, Lisboa, Portugal, 8-11 Oct. 2002 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/CLAD/clad004360 5.pdf 8. Glor, E. (1998) “Public Sector Innovation in Canada,”” chapter in Hoffman, Randy, Diane Jurkowski, Victor MacKinnon, Janice Nicholson, James Simeon. 1998. Public Administration: Canadian Materials, Third Edition, Toronto: Captus Press, pp.300-340 9. Gow, J. (205) Quality Management and Organisational Innovation in Canada. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal. 11(1). 10. Joyce, M. (2007) Performance Information and Innovation in the CanadianGovernment. Working Paper 43 School of Policy Studies. Queens University. http://www.queensu.ca/sps/publications/working_papers/43Joyce.pdf 11. Marson, B. & Heintzman, R. (2009) From Research to Results:A Decade of Results-Based Service Improvement in Canada. New Directions Series. The Institute of Public Administration of Canada. 12. Paquet, G. (1999) Innovations in Governance in Canada. Optimum. The Journal o Public Sector Management. 29(2/3): 71-81 13. Tan, K. C. & Mechling, J. (2007) Service Canada – A New Paradigm in Government Service Delivery. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. 14. Wilkins J. (2002) Learning from Canadian Innovations in Alternative Service Delivery. CAPAM Biennial Conference. 2002. Additional References  Albury, D. (2005). Fostering Innovation in Public Services. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 51-56.   Aucoin, P. (2005). Decision‐making in government:The role of program evaluation (discussion paper prepared for the Treasury Board Secretariat). Retrieved June 25, 2007. from http://www.tbssct. gc.ca/eval/tools_outils/Aucoin/Aucoin_e.asp. Borins, S. (2006). The challenge of innovating in government (second edition) (Second ed.): IBM Center for the Business of Government. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 57 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies                Canada. Government on Line. (2006). Government‐on‐line: 2006 Annual Report. Canada. Public Service Agency. (2007). Public Service Award of Excellence: Nomination guidelines. Retrieved June 29, 2007. from http://www.psagency‐agencefp.gc.ca/hr‐rh/arpr/new_excellence/guidelines_ e.asp. Canada. Public Works and Government Services. (2006). Government On‐Line lessons learned. Canada. Treasury Board. (2004b). Strengthening public sector management: An overview of the Government action plan and key initiatives. Retrieved June 25, 2007. from http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/spsm‐rgsp/spsm‐rgsp_e.asp. Canada. Treasury Board. (2005). Management resources and results structure policy. Retrieved June 24, 207. from http://www.tbs‐sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/mrrsp‐psgrr/mrrsppsgrr01_e.as p#_Toc90452626. Canada. Treasury Board. (2006). Valuing the evaluation function: Problems and perspectives. Retrieved June 24, 2007. from http://www.tbs‐sct.gc.ca/eval/ppt/jun06‐001/vef‐vfe_e.asp. Aucoin & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Managing strategic change: Learning from Program Review. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development. Brodtrick,O. (1999) Risk, Innovation and Values: Examining the Tensions – Final Report, Prepared for Risk Management Division, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat Centre for Public Management, 15 April 1999 Canada. Treasury Board. (2007a). Policy on Management Resources and Results Structure (MRRS): Why is it important for public performance reporting? Retrieved June 24, 2007. from athttp://www.tbs‐sct.gc.ca/presentations/rma‐dpr/poli/page01_e.asp Doern, G. B. (1971). Recent Changes in the Philosophy of Policy‐Making in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, 4(2), 243‐264. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 27‐34. Kernaghan, K., B.Marson and S.Borins, 2000, The New Public Organization, Ottawa, Institute for Public Administration in Canada. KPMG International. (2007). Performance agenda: an international government survey. Kroeger, A. (1998). The central agencies and program review. In P. Aucoin & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Managing strategic change: Learning from program review. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development. Lindquist, E.A., 1997, “The Bewildering Pace of Public Sector Reform in Canada” in Public Sector Reform, ed. J-E Lane, London, SAGE Publications. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 58 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies      Flumianm, M., Amanda Coe and Kenneth Kernaghan, “Transforming service to Canadians: the Service Canada model,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, Volume 73, Number 4 (December 2007), pp. 557568. Mohnen, P., and J.Rosa, 1999, “Barriers to Innovation in Service Industries in Canada”, Statistics Canada Research Paper 88F0017MPB No.7, Ottawa, Statistics Canada. Public Policy Forum. (1998a). Innovation in the Federal Government: the risk not taken (summary of discussion at a roundtable on innovation and risk‐taking in the federal government, October 6, 1998). Retrieved June 29, 2007. from http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/dpmenu_e.html. Public Policy Forum. (1998b). Innovation in the Federal Government: the risk not taken. (discussion paper prepared as a background document for a roundtable discussion to be held on behalf of the Office of the Auditor General). Retrieved June 29, 2007. from http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/domino/other.nsf/html/dpmenu_e.html. Sutherland, S. L. (2007). The unaccountable Federal Accountability Act: Goodbye to responsible government? [Electronic Version]. Revue Gouvernance, 3, from http://www.revuegouvernance.ca/articleen. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 59 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies B.3 Singapore 1. Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector. The current overarching policy framework for public sector development is PS21. The PS21 Office is within the Prime Minister’s Department78. This framework places a strong emphasis on continual, engagement, empowerment and individual responsibility for seeking opportunities for innovation and improvement. This is clear form Table 1 which summarises the objectives and focus of PS21, and from Table 2 which provides an innovation ‘manifesto’ for the public service. Table 1: Public Service for the 21st Century PS21 is about the Singapore Public Service's commitment to Anticipate, Welcome and Execute change, influencing developments in order to provide Singapore with the best conditions for success. PS21 has two objectives:  to foster an environment which embraces and activates perpetual change to remain effective and relevant, whilst paying attention to employee engagement and recognition; and  to nurture an attitude of service excellence Focus of PS21  Empowering and Enabling Officers for Continuous Improvement. PS21 is a mass movement and at its core lies our people. Every officer, regardless of level or nature of work, has to feel empowered to take responsibility for his work and think about how best to deal with challenges and unexpected situations that may arise. We need to create the right conditions to empower our officers to seek and to contribute to continuous improvement. At the same time, we recognise that we need to build the skills and capacity of our people and to provide them with learning opportunities to develop themselves.  Employee Engagement and Recognition. We promote employee engagement as we recognise that officers will be committed to their jobs and enthusiastic about doing it well if they feel engaged, valued and recognised. Efforts in recognising staff excellence and promoting staff well-being will help to strengthen the morale of our officers and foster pride within the Public Service.  Service Excellence. With rising public expectations, and increasingly complex transactions, the Public Service seeks to continually improve its service and to remain relevant. We encourage an attitude of service  Excellence amongst public officers and search for better ways to cater to the needs of our customers. Public agencies take ownership and responsibility for promoting service excellence within their organisations, and contributing to the overall improvement of the service provided by the Singapore Public Service. http://app.ps21.gov.sg/newps21/ 78 http://app.ps21.gov.sg/newps21/ Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 60 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Table 2: The Innovation Manifesto We see Singapore as an Innovative Society that is able to offers limitless opportunities st for all in the Knowledge Based Society. The Public Service for the 21 century, as an integral component of society, has to continually re-invent itself to support the innovative and enterprise movement so as to better anticipate, welcome and execute change. In doing so, we will be guided by the following principles:  People want challenge in their work and recognition for what they do. People want to contribute and know that their contributions matter. Hence, they are motivated to contribute to a worthwhile higher purpose and cause, beyond selfinterest.  Everyone has talent and ability. Each individual has something to contribute and diversity of views must be encouraged for non-linear thinking and analysis.  People want to improve themselves and can do so. People have an inherent thirst to learn. They can improve given time, opportunity and training.  Individuals best realise and maximise their creative value through collaboration with others. Collaboration may vary from a network of relations to an integrated organisation. Innovation thrives best in a vibrant environment as opposed to being in a vacuum.  Everyone thinking and doing will achieve more than a few thinking and doing. This is especially critical for Singapore with our limited manpower, to succeed, we will need to leverage on the diverse knowledge, skills and expertise of every single individual.  The manager’s role is to facilitate and allow his staff to optimise their innovative capacity. By instilling a sense of purpose and creating the broad framework and safe environment in which the staff could operate - new ideas, experiments and change become the norm rather than the exception. Supervisors must move from “managing resources” to “leading and inspiring people”. Leadership skills must be honed for the New Economy. We challenge everyone to ask themselves: HAVE YOU INNOVATED TODAY? Singapore Public Service The Enterprise Challenge A key component of Singapore’s strategies for innovation in the public sector, and an important element of the overall Singapore innovation strategy is the Enterprise Challenge (TEC). The TEC Secretariat is part of the PS21 Office, in the Prime Minister’s Department. The Enterprise Challenge (TEC), an initiative by the Prime Minister's Office in 2000, funds innovative and risky proposals that have the potential to create new value or significant improvements to the delivery of public services. TEC provides funding and test beds for innovations that need to be trial tested to Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 61 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies assess their feasibility and practicality. TEC aims to encourage creativity, innovation and enterprise, and to create new value for the public service and improve services to the public. TEC receives funding from the Ministry of Finance and the Economic Development Board 2. The Scope of Innovation Initiatives and Activity There does not appear to be any systematic information available on the characteristics of innovation in the public sector. However, it is clear from discussion of e-government and ICT applications that Singapore is an extensive user of ICT. Table 4, which lists all of the innovation trials supported by the TEC, shows clearly that the scope of innovation is wide. While no systematic innovation is available on policy innovation, the evidence from several studies of Singapore industrial, innovation and IT policy indicates that the Government pursues a highly pragmatic and innovative approach to policy79. 3. The Role of Information Technology as a major driver of Innovation As noted above, it is evident that ICT is a major enabler in many of the projects supported under the TEC. The government’s overall ICT plan, iGov 2010, aims to use IT to better address customers’ needs and deliver quality services; engage citizens in policy formulation and provide useful information l; and be innovative in creating new value within the public sector as well as for the economic sectors - over 1,600 government services are offered online. For example, in 1997 the government of Singapore established the eCitizen Portal as a single gateway to government services and information. As WuChoy Peng, Assistant Chief Executive for Infocomm of Singapore claims that, eCitizen “… pioneered the concept of citizencentredness through the integration of services and information according to intuitive categories such as “education,” “housing” etc.”80 The government developed an Integrated Government Maturity Framework that articulates the basis for integrated government service delivery. A systematic methodology, the Singapore Government Enterprise Architecture (SGEA), was designed to help identify common business functions and processes where there are opportunities for cross-agency collaboration. In 2006, a government department under the Ministry of Finance was set up to consolidate and deliver corporate shared services to ministries, and agencies of the government. 4. Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector 79 See, for example Goh and Kamarck in the references. Quoted in Kamarck, E. (2004) Government Innovation Around the World. Faculty Research Working Papers Series. RWP04-010. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan015626.pdf 80 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 62 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies The Enterprise Challenge (TEC) aims to promote higher risk innovation projects than those a department might normally support. With the cost of the project met by TEC, government agencies are able to expose themselves to new technologies without the associated financial risks. The TEC has funded over 65 proposals at a cost of S$19 million (US$11.3million). The TEC estimates that were the innovations successfully implemented that they could reap potential cost savings of S$300 million (US$178.2 million).81. Table 3 sets out the major stages in the development of the TEC. Table 4 lists the projects that have been supported by the TEC. Table 3: TEC Development Milestones 2000 TEC was launched with a $10 million fund setup. 2000 TEC participated in Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management (CAPAM) Innovation Awards 2000 and made it to the semifinals of the competition. 2002 Committee of Permanent Secretaries approved the extension of TEC to continue for another 2 more years with a fresh input of $10 million. 2003 TEC extended until Mar 2006 with a fresh input of $9M 2005 The inaugural TEC Seminar was held with the objective of providing a platform for innovators to showcase their TEC innovations and to look beyond the TEC trial for new sources of funding, and attract potential business partners and customers. The seminar helped link up TEC innovators with various public agencies that play the role of adopters, and venture capitalists as potential investors to some of these innovations. 2006 The inaugural TEC Public Service Innovation Award 2006 was successfully held. A media conference was held at the NLB Pod on 6 November to showcase the award winners of the TEC Public Service Innovation Award 2006. The award was given out by Mr Teo Chee Hean, Minister in charge of the Civil Service at the Public Service Exhibition on 15 November. Table 4: The Enterprise Challenge: Trials Implemented. Education ----Advanced Government Integrated Learning Environment (AGILE) ----Educational Innovation for the Knowledge-Based Economy: ----Development of a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Education Model ----Diagnostics Tutorial & Assessment System (DTAS) ----Math Explorer - A 100% Web-based Assessment System for Math ----Intelligent Content Assessment Marking System (ICAM) ----Ide'Lite, Holistic Service Training Pedagogic Approach Environment ----New Soil Improvement Technology ----Bioscrubber for Odour Treatment ----Biology Treatment of Industrial Food Waste 81 http://www.tec.gov.sg/TEC%20Home/home1.htm Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 63 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies ----Converting Industrial Waste into Value-Added Products ----Conversion Of Food Waste Into Biogas And Fertilizer ----Ballast Water Treatment ----Liquid Dessicant Cooling System Technology (L-DCS) ----Automatic Cleaning System for Water Cooled Condensers ----An Efficient Air-Conditioning System with Zonal Ventilation Control for Improved Air Quality ----Pilot Project On The Application Of Enhanced Engineered Wetland Technology For The Removal Of Nutrients From Stormwater At Kranji ----Nanostructured Photocatalyst For Membrane Fouling Control ----Thermal Energy Storage Project ----Pilot Plant To Recycle Used Lubricating Oil Using A Ceremic Membrane Based Technology ----Pilot Testing of Membrance Distillation of Bioreactor - An Intregrated Wastewater ----/Waste Heat Process for Reclamation of Inductrial Wastewater Health ----NUH NetCare ----Systems for Therapy Assessments & Rehabilitation Training through Simulation (STARTS) ----Virtual Reality Environment for Surgery Planning: The Dextroscope and DextroBeam ----Pervasive Computing and Wireless Delivery of Clinical Cardiology Information ----Development and trial testing of Clinical Olfactometer ----Data Integration and Analysis of Intensive Care Unit ----EzDetect Lab-On-Card Diagnostic Device for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ----Quantified Dermatology to Objectively Measure Skin Disease and Track Treatment Response for Better Patient Care ----In-Vitro, In-Vivo And Clinical Trial Of Bio-Scaffold For Bone Reconstruction And Implants ----Atoms (Advanced Testing Ordering Management System) ----Automated Wireless Temperature ----RESEASY ----High Throughput Genetic Lab Biochip and Critical Applications ----Robotic Prostate Biopsy/ Brachytheraphy ----Dynamic Resource Leveling In The Clinical Operation Through Co-Ordinated Care Scheduling And Queue Management ----BCI-based Robotic Rehabilitation for Stroke Patients ----Just-In-Time Drug Delivery For In-Patient Wards And Specialist Outpatient Clinics Through ----Delayed Differentiation ----Computer Intregrated Patient Controlled Epidural Analgesia (Pain Relief) and Central ---Management System ----Integrative Good Argronomics Practice Eletronic System for Traditional Chinese Medicine ----Clinical Trials of a Robotic Thyroid Biopsy Device National and Economic Development ----New Soil Improvement Technology ----Collaborative One-Stop Virtual Engineering Services (COVES) ----Portable Field Water-Tightness Testing Device that Stimulates Rain and Wind Condition ----Project Geographic System ----E-Port ----CPF mServices: Mobile Employers’ Submissions ----Pavement Management System for Changi International Airport ----Delivering Real-Time Operational Information in SPF ----Pre-empting System for Electrical Switchboard Failures ----Active RFID Event Management System ----Electricity Vending System ----Seamless Passenger Travel ----Intelligent Neuro-Driven Knowledge Management Safety ----Traffic Light Vision-Based System ----Watermist Technology for Frontline Firefighting ----Robotic Façade Maintenance Unit ----Drowning Early Warning System ----Jetsis Firefighter ----Mobile SCDF Scrubber Vehicle ----Development and Demonstration of a Mobile Foreign Object Deposit Intelligent Detection and Alarm System Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 64 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies ----Electronic Vehicle Recall System ----Real Time Remote Fibre Optic Monitoring System ----Info@Sea ----Project iVision- Runway Surveillance And Foreign Object Detection Security ----Secure e-Ticketing for Singapore Indoor Stadium Ticketing System (SISTIC) ----Project mPOD: SPF Mobile Computing Project ----Rapid Automated Computer Examination System (RACES) ----Detection of Latent Fingerprints using Phase-Resolved Optical Technique ----Deployment of the Police Intelligent Closed Circuit Television System (i-CCTV) ----Virtual Police Centre (ePC) ----Intelligent Voice Profiling System ----Human Identification through Face & Tag Recognition System ----Rapid DNA Fingerprinting Sensor ----Mobile Security Software for Mobile Phones ----Feasibility for Camera-In-Train ----Fast and Accurate Characterisation of Explosives By Means of Synchrotron Radiation ----Enhanced Typing Strategies For Degraded DNA ----DNA Profiling for Inference of Ethnicity ----Innovative Latent Finger Print Analysis and Donor Profiling - Nano Powder and System Trials Social ----Internet Home Tele-visit Initiative for Inmate’s Families and Visitors ----Project KidzGrow ----Aspiration Pathfinder ----Assistive Device For Handicapped And Elderly Persons ----Voice-Enabling Tan Tock Seng Hospital ----Web-Enabled Telecardiac Care System ----A Secure Tele-Ophathalmology System ----Mobile Library Bus http://www.tec.gov.sg/ 5. The Singapore Public Sector Context As noted above, the Singapore government has a strong and well earned reputation for robust, pragmatic and innovative approaches to social, economic and development policy. The continuity of the administration, with little likelihood of a change of government, provides a foundation of stability which enables long term planning, and a history of independent analysis and action. The Singapore government has a particularly strong orientation toward policies to drive evolution toward the development of a knowledge economy. This perspective has a systemic influence on policy throughout the dense networks that link the political, administrative and business groups in Singapore. 6. Evidence of Improvement in Innovation Performance Apart from the evidence provided by the TEC program no systematic evidence of the improvements in innovation-related performance is available. 7. Lessons of Experience Perhaps the key lesson of this unique experience is the potential of a program like the TEC to initiate bold projects that would be unlikely to happen if left to individual departments. A second ‘lesson’ is the potential for such a scheme to elicit ideas and engagement from throughout the economy and in so doing Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 65 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies generate opportunities for new products and capabilities that generate benefits beyond their impact in the public service in Singapore. 9. Sources A Note: Very little independent analysis of public sector innovation in Singapore appears to be available. Government sites: http://app.ps21.gov.sg/newps21/ http://www.tec.gov.sg/TEC%20Home/home1.htm  Goh, Andrew (2002). ‘Industrial Policy Focus of South East Asian Nations: Technology Development or Innovation?’ Journal for Institutional Innovation, Development and Transition, 6, 89-91.  Goh, Andrew (2003). ‘Evolution of Industrial Policy-Making In Support of Innovation: The Case of Singapore’ International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 1, 4, 1-28.  Goh, Andrew (2004). ‘Enhancing Competitiveness Through Innovation: Issues and Implications for Industrial Policy-Making’ International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, Vol. 2, N2, pp. 1-43.  Kamarck, E. (2004) Government Innovation Around the World. Faculty Research Working Papers Series. RWP04-010. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan01 5626.pdf  Neo, Boon Siong and Chen, G. (2008) DYNAMIC GOVERNANCE Embedding Culture, Capabilities and Change in Singapore Appendix Table CRITICAL FACTORS FOR INNOVATION [Singapore Government’s Guidelines to All Organisations] (1) Passion for Fuel: Commotional Motion. An innovative organisation is first a motivated one. It acts for a cause that is powerful enough to stir the passion of its people. (2) Fish-Eye Vision: Broaden the Mission. The innovative organisation stretches and broadens the way it looks at its mission. (3) Mindset Makeover: Risk to Opportunity. To be innovative, it is necessary to shift the mindset away from incumbency to welcome change. A mindset makeover is what lies between the “before” and “after,” what allows a risk to become an opportunity. (4) Open-House Day, Everyday. An open organisational culture, which allows for continual sharing and dispels fear of failure, will lead to an Open-House atmosphere in which innovation can thrive. (5) F.M. Radio: Fresh Mentalities on Air. An organisation intent on being innovative makes sure to devote airtime to the young and less experienced in the ranks so that they can bring fresh mentalities and perspectives to the drawing table. (6) Mindreader: System for Sharing. Innovation flourishes best where the free, unhindered flow of information is enabled. To this end, a viable system for sharing – of ideas, tacit knowledge, techniques, lessons and mistakes – must be in place so that the Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 66 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies entire organisation enjoys the collective knowledge of its people and their experiences. The organisation can virtually “tap” into the minds of all its members. (7) Mandollar: Invest in People. To count on people in an organisation (and we need to since people are the generators and storehouses of ideas), we need to learn to count people in. We need to view them as crucial and valuable investments, both when we hire them for the strength of their values, and as we enhance them through training and continuous learning. (8) Stun-Gun: Fire Shocks at the System. The Stun-Gun makes it impossible for an organisation to rest on its laurels, simulating conditions that call for alertness and imagination, bringing about innovation where complacency might otherwise reside. (9) Good Old R&R: Recognition and Rewards. Organisations that have successfully implemented innovation always appreciate and celebrate, in monetary and nonmonetary manners, the good work of its innovators. (10) Tag-Team Innovation. Wherever possible, innovation is aided by the value-creating, barrier-crossing, resource-harnessing cooperation of organisations and collaboration of people across ranks, jurisdictions, and sectors. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 67 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies B.4 Netherlands 1. Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector. In 2002 the Dutch Cabinet announced a comprehensive set of measures in a program called ‘Better Governance for Citizens and Business Program’. By 2008 the ‘National Renewal Program’ focused on more joined-up government, service improvement and sharp reductions in public service employment. The ‘Innovation Platform’, essentially a high level consultative body modelled on the Finnish Science and Technology Policy Council, was established by the Dutch Prime Minister in 2003. The Innovation Platform has taken a particular interest in innovation in the public sector and included that topic in its work program from 2006. A working group was established to assess the role of government in innovation, particularly through innovative procurement – being a ‘launching customer’82. The Innovation Platform played a leading role in the introduction of innovation vouchers83. The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and by the Ministry of Finance have the primary responsibility for innovation in the Dutch public sector84. The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations is also responsible for the introduction and implementation of e-government in Holland. In specific sectors such as health, defence, training, etc., individual ministries created ad hoc units to undertake monitoring activities and to promote modernisation. It appears that there have also been several organisations created within or outside of government with a focus on innovation. The Netherlands School of Public Administration (NSOB)85 which was founded by the universities of Leiden and Rotterdam as a private institution, also supports the modernisation of the public sector. It is organised as a self-managing interuniversity institute. Since its establishment, more than 2500 practitioners from all levels of government, executive agencies and private sector organizations have participated in its educational programs. The e-government agenda is directed by the E-Government Knowledge Centre86 (ELO) and the 21st Century Government Network (ON21) organises collective purchasing of IT equipment and services for the public sector87. Recently a new Professional and Innovative Procurement Network (PIANO), a network of 1,500 Dutch public purchasing organisations has been established to share knowledge and improve coordination in innovation-oriented procurement. http://www. Innovatieplatform.nl/en/projecten/overhead_en_innovatie/index.html www.innovatieplatform.nl 84 www.minbzk.nl; www.minfin.nl 85 www.nsob.nl 86 www.elo.nl/elo/english/kelo/index.jsp 87 http://www.n21.nl 82 83 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 68 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies 2. The Scope of Innovation Initiatives and Activity Public Sector Innovation and Quality bureau in the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations developed a database of 850 examples of innovation in several sectors of the public sector were assembled into a Public Sector Innovation and Quality Database. w w w . b e n c h m a r k e n in d e p u b l ie k e s e c t o r . n l ( in D u t c h ) The innovations compiled in the Public Sector Innovation and Quality Database, cover both new services or products and improvements in services or administration processes, and the majority (according to one source, 70%) were incremental. In public administration most innovations originate with management, whereas in healthcare and the police most were initiated by employees. Most incremental innovations were initiated by management whereas most ‘radical’ innovations were initiated by employees or external organisations88. 3. The Role of Information Technology as a major driver of Innovation The Netherlands has been a leader in e-government, with major initiatives in the early 1990s, the Electronic Government Action Plan in 1998 and a comprehensive strategy, The Dutch Digital Delta, in 1999, and new action program, Another Government, in 2003. Major innovations have been implemented across the public sector, including in voting, tax, and one-stop digital desks for public access to government information and transactions. The Ministry of Economic Affairs coordinates IT policy. The Dutch Organisation for ICT and Government (ICTU), created in 201, coordinates inter-departmental programs. 89. Several quite detailed studies of the development and application of ICT innovations in the Dutch public sector are available90. 4. Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector The Dutch government has been an active participant in the innovation systems supporting water management and construction/housing. The links between public policy, research, regulation, procurement and the private sector are well recognised and there are many mechanisms for dialogue and collaboration among the many players in these sectors91. 88 Eshuis P.H. & Muizer, A. P. Nd How Innovative is the Public Sector. This is a short paper which provides very limited analysis of the database. 89 CAIMED (c.2004) Best Practices in The European Countries. The Netheralnds. http://www.caimed.org. 90 For example: Korteland, E. & Bekkers, V. (2007) Diffusion of E-government innovations in the Dutch Public Sector: the case of digital community policing. Information Polity 12: 139-150. Bekkers has written several other reports.; van Duivenboden, H. and Thaens, M. (2008) / ICT-driven innovation and the culture of public administrationInformation Polity 13 (2008) 213–232 91 See for example: Bossink, B. (2002) A Dutch Public-Private Strategy for Innovation in Sustainable Construction. Construction Management and Economics 20: 633-642 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 69 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies The Dutch government became convinced that the goal of greater environmental sustainability required major change in the ‘functional systems’ of energy, transport and agriculture, and as a result “ conceptualised the quest toward sustainability as an issue of managing transitions in functional systems.”92. This new approach (it dates from c.1999) was the result of a process of policy learning associated with: a more systems orientation to both innovation and the socio-technical systems of energy etc; a foresight-based approach to long term assessment, and; a high level of inter-departmental cooperation. In essence the focus is on ‘system innovation’ rather than innovation simply at the level of a particular technology or specific policy. Although beginning largely in the environment department the strongest proponent of transition management became the Ministry of Economic Affairs. This changed perspective had major implications for the policy and the role of government. Policy became more concerned with transition paths, rather than specific outcomes. Government became one of the coordinators of transition processes in a long term cooperative approach which involved joint learning, investment and coordination with other social groups (particularly business). The new approach involved a shift in policy toward a more active approach to learning, about a variety of options and in collaboration with others – ie learning at a system level about systemic change, involving ‘a new structure of collective governance emerges whereby government is at the same time facilitator [eg through network building] and one of the players.’ In particular government facilitates a process involving a continuous cycle of:  Problem structuring, organising transition arenas, developing sustainability visions;  Creating arena of arenas, developing transition images, and agendas;  Mobilising transition networks and executing projects and experiments;  Evaluating, monitoring and learning. 93 It appears that this explicit approach to managing transitions leads to a changed policy process: “The Dutch transition approach is innovation-oriented and bottom-up with longterm visions guiding societal experiments. Various paths are explored simultaneously to avoid lock in adherence to certain paths. This makes sense given the uncertainty about what option is best. In doing so Dutch authorities rely on the wisdom of variation and selection processes rather than the ’intelligence’ of planning. A mechanism of self-correction based on policy learning and social learning is part of transition management. It offers a framework for policy integration, helping different Ministries to collaborate.”p26 This approach is also as an example of ‘reflexive governance’ or ‘evolutionary governance’94. Kemp, R. & Loorbach, D. (2005) Dutch Policies to Manage the Transition to Sustainable Energy. In Beckenbach, F. et al Jahrbuch Okologische Okonomik: Innovationen und Transformation. Band 4 Metropolis, Marburg, 125-150. 93 Ibid. 94 See Kemp, R. and Loorback, D. (2006) in Voss, J. et al (Eds) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham. Edward Elgar.; d Bruijn, Tl and Norberg92 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 70 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies The government has developed several different awards for performance in the public sector. Among the many awards for quality and best practices in Holland, are:      The “Chapeau” awards for quality in service provision, awarded every two years starting in 1996 The “Kordes” awards for annual reports, launched in 1996 The Nachwacht awards, for programs in the health and welfare sectors The award for innovation in Police and Security services, first launched in 1992 The INK awards for quality in the Dutch public administration w w w . in k . n l In 2002 the government introduced an award for Innovation in the Public Sector. There has been a strong emphasis on the quality of services and on the continual adaptation of services and service delivery to meet community needs. Several mechanisms are used to drive continual improvement:  Surveys on citizen satisfaction A survey on satisfaction is undertaken every two years. A total of 14,000 questionnaires are distributed to executives and officials in various public administrations, including the Education, Defence, and Security and Police Ministries. At the local level surveys on citizen satisfaction are widely used in order to improve services provided to citizens and to direct modernisation and change processes.  Benchmarking and the use of best practices for improving public administration quality Benchmarking activities are often included in broader projects managed by single ministries.  Initiatives to introduce benchmarking and best practices The INK quality model, promoted by the Dutch Institute for Quality, is widely used in the Dutch public administrations. This model is very similar to the EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) model and is currently used by about 50% of public organisations in order to guarantee quality services. w w w . in k . n l  Groups outside of government shaping change The Public Cause is a Dutch group of citizens aiming to increase the quality of public services and policy. www.publiekezaak.nl. The OmslagGroep (Foundation of Change) is an organisation of companies Bohm , V. (Eds) (2005) Industrial Transformation: Environmental Policy Innovation in the United States and Europe. MIT Press.; Smith, A. & Kern, F. (2007) The Energitranistie: analysing the socio-technical turn in Dutch energy policy. 4th General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research. Pisa, Italy.; Van den Bosch , S. and Roetmans, J. (2008)(Deepening, Broadening and Scaling Up: A Framework for Steering Transition Experiments. Knowledge Centre for sustainable system innovation and Transitions (KCT), TNO, Netherlands Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 71 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies aiming to contribute to improved public sector operations. www.omslaggroep.nl XPIN XPIN was formed in 2001 founded by the council of secretary-generals of all 14 Dutch departments to pursue innovative and interactive policy making The Dutch Department for transport, water management and infrastructure had been experimenting with more interactive policy making for over almost 20 years and some other departments had shown interest in these approaches. A community of researchers, consultants and policy makers had developed who shared an interest in further developing these approaches. It appears that XPIN is no longer operating. 5. The Dutch Public Sector Context It is clear that in the Dutch social context there are high expectations of the quality of government policy and services and also on the quality of engagement with the community in both policy and service development. Government is a participant, a facilitator, in many areas of Dutch economic and social activity. Hence, the context is one of a small and concentrated community with a long history of engaged and consultative government. 6. Evidence of Improvement in Innovation Performance A recent review of the application of ICT in government, which drew in large part, but not exclusively on Dutch experience, concluded that: “..the innovative potential of ICT has not been fully exploited. An internal, technology determined, perspective on innovation prevails. ICT-driven innovation is primarily focussed on the improvement of information processing. Efficiency gains (which have been substantial) have been the legitimising driver for this kind of process innovation, leading to a certain one-sidedness. Innovation strategies have been primarily defined as strategies to improve the ‘machinery of government’, thereby inspired by New Public Management, in order to build a ‘managerial state’ [14], which in many countries is perceived as the frame of reference for the assessment of successful modernization and innovation. Mimicking also plays an important role in the diffusion of specific process oriented innovations…[recent studies suggest] a strong emphasis on public service process innovation through technological innovation. ICTs are also primarily be perceived a neutral set of tools, which can be used to (re)-design the cogwheels within the machinery of government. ICT-driven innovation has hardly been related to external developments and challenges, like the growing aging of the population or the social quality of neighbourhoods in urban regions. An external, societal orientation is lacking. Thus, the potential of ICT-driven innovations in the public sector can be enhanced so as to provide a richer public Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 72 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies innovation agenda, if public administration is able to connect its own, internal managerial innovation agenda to the broader societal agenda.”95 7. Lessons of Experience The most useful lessons from the Dutch experience appear to be the approach to policy and service innovation through collaborative relationships with business and community groups. In the area of water management, health and particularly sustainability approaches to policy innovation are largely based on collaborative strategies. 8. Sources 1. Bekkers, V. and V. Homburg, eds, The information ecology of egoverrnment, IOS Press, Amsterdam/Berlin/Oxford/ Tokyo/Washington DC, 2005. 2. Bekkers, V. (2007) Modernization, public innovation and information and communication technologies: The emperor’s new clothes? Information Polity 12 (2007) 103–107 3. Kemp, R. & Loorbach, D. (2005) Dutch Policies to Manage the Transition to Sustainable Energy. In Beckenbach, F. et al Jahrbuch Okologische Okonomik: Innovationen und Transformation. Band 4 Metropolis, Marburg, 125-150. 4. Kickert, W. & Toonen, T ( 2007) Public Administration In The Netherlands: Expansion, Diversification And Consolidation. Public Administration. Volume 84 Issue 4: 969-987 5. van Duivenboden, H. V. Bekkers and M. Thaens, Creative destruction of Public Administration Practices, in: Informationand Communication Technology and Public Innovation, V. Bekkers, H. van Duivenboden and M. Thaens, eds, IOS Press,Amsterdam/Berlin/Oxford/Tokyo/Washington DC, 2006, pp. 230–243. EGPA Conference Innovation in the Public Sector, September 3-6 2008 Victor Bekkers, Arthur Edwards, Rebecca Moody, Henri Beunders: New media, micro-mobilization and political agenda setting: how young people have used Web 2.0 to change the education agenda in the Netherlands Alexandra Collm: Strategizing in the Public Sector: Roles within Top Management Teams in the IT Strategy Process 95 Bekkers, V. (2007) Modernization, public innovation and information and communication technologies: The e peror’s ew clothes. Information Polity 12: 103-107. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 73 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen: WHAT DRIVES TRANSPARENCY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT: PUSH OR PULL? Explaining the degree of Internet transparency of air quality information in the Netherlands Are Vegard Haug: Digital Network leadership and innovation: is there a connection? Tom Christensen, Per Lægreid: ICT Tools in Central Government: Scope, Effects and Driving Forces Tino Schuppan: Skill Requirements for eGovernment Stefan Soeparman, Hein van Duivenboden, Teun Oosterbaan, Jasper Ragetlie: Infomediaries and Collaborative Innovation: A Case Study on Information Technology and Intermediation centered in the Dutch Sector Employment and Social Security Charlotte van Ooijen: Territorialising eGovernment: Institutional innovation through the use of Location Aware Technologies C. William R Webster: Hermann Hil: Quality and Performance Management in the 21st Century - A New Approach Peter Hupe, Wouter van Dooren: The Politics of Talk and Action: Welfare State Reform and Performance in Belgium and The Netherlands Gordon Marnoch: Concepts of performance employed in parliamentary oversight. A study of members of the Scottish Parliament Health and Community Care Committee 1999-2007. Zoe Radnor: Understanding the Relationship between Performance and a National Award Scheme Willem Trommel: GOOD GOVERNANCE AS GOVERNANCE reflexive. Towards Second-Order Performance Evaluations of Public Steven van de Walle: WHEN DO PUBLIC SERVICES PERFORM? CHANGING AND CONTESTED DEFINITIONS OF PERFORMANCE IN THE 'SERVICES OF GENERAL INTEREST' DEBATE Dries Verlet, Carl Devos: Evaluation of performance in the public sector: end or mean? Khalid O. Al-Yahya, Morten Balle Hansen: Leadership, Motivation and Innovation in the Public Sector - a Conceptual Framework for a Cross-Cultural Comparative Research Project Sonja van der Arend: Dreaming of Water Bodies: The Politics of WFD Governance Innovations Morten Balle Hansen: Variations in the Adoption of New Public Management Practices, Leadership, Context and Types of Innovation Rik van Berkel, Paul van der Aa, Nicolette van Gestel: New Welfare, New Frontline Workers? Redesigning Case Management in Dutch Local Welfare Agencies Emanuel Camilleri, Francesco Cerase, Isabell Egger-Peitler, Gerhard Schmid Hammer, Annie Hondeghem, Peter Leisink, Renate Meyer, Adrian Ritz, Bram Steijn, Wouter Vande Nabeel: Comparing Public Service Motivation within Various European Countries: Do Institutional Environments make a diference? Karolien van Dorpe, Annie Hondeghem, Montuelle Caroline, Christian de Visscher: Assessing the Belgian Mandate System from an International Comparative Perspective Y. Emery, N. Martin, C. Wyser: Innovation in the Public Sector as Perceived by Street-level Bureaucrats Sandra Groeneveld: Career Development in the Dutch Civil Service Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 74 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Jane Järvalt, Tiina-Randma Liiv, Külli Sarapuu: The Case of No Central HR Strategy Patrick McGurk: Outcomes of Management and Leadership Development in Public Service Organizations Adrian Ritz: Leadership Behavior and Performance Oriented Work Conditions: How do they Influence Emplyee Commitment and Public Service Motivation? Sweater Stone: Never No Time to Play. Belgian Bureaucratic Leaders Caught In The Reality of Day-to-Day Practices Wouter Vandenabeele: Leadership Promotion of Public Service Values, Transformational Leadership as an Institutional Explanation for Individual Public Service Motivation Brenda Vermeeren, Ben Kuipers, Bram Steijn, Merel Vogelaar: Human Resource Management and Performance of Public Organizations, A Study of HRM Activities and Public Service Quality of Dutch Municipalities Alberto Asquer: Edvins Vanags, Ilmars Vanags, Inga Vilka: Innovation of Intergovernmental Relations: From Fragmented Governments to Collaborative Governance Network Kai Wegrich: Regulatory Innovation and Multi-Level Gaming. The Europeanization of Better Regulation Policy Peter Swan, Henri Goverde: Making Sense of EU State-aid Requirements; The case of Green Services Morten Balle Hansen: Marketization and Economic Performance, Competitive Tendering in the Social Sector George A. Boyne, Oliver James, Peter John, Nicolai Petrovsky: Should the Bureaucrats Stay or Should They Go? The Impact of Top Management Team Turnover on Public Service Performance Tom Christensen, Per Lægreid: ICT Tools in Central Government: Scope, Effects and Driving Forces Sara Demuzere, Koen Verhoest, Geert Bouckaert: Quality Management in Public Sector Organizations: Factors Which Do Make a Difference? Julia Fleischer: Agents for "Better Coordination 'in Europe? How Support for Public Sector Reforms and Regulatory Impact Assessments Affects Government Performance Elizabeth A. Graddy: The Structure and Performance of Inter-organizational Relationships within Public Service Delivery Networks Angel Saz-Carranza: Nonprofit-THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: HOW IMMIGRANT COALITION Catering MANAGE CONFRONTATION AND COOPERATION WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR Hester of the Upper Camp, Eelko Breejen: Working paper changes Third Sector: The Case of the patient movement in the Netherlands Brandsen taco, Philip Marcel Karre: The Risks of Hybrid Organizations. Expectations and Evidence Cristina Tina Fusetti: The dilemma of multi-stakeholder sports associations: organizational design and its constraints Remarks on Sport Governance in Three French Sport Federations Christoph Golbeck: Non-Profit Organizations and Social Service Provision: Chances for New Governance Arrangements in the Third Sector? Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 75 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Ricardo Corrêa Gomes, Joyce Liddle, Raissa Cristina Lucena Veloso: EMPLOYEES THE BALANCED SCORECARD AS A TOOL FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL THIRD SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF THE ARTHUR FOUNDATION Bernardes - BRAZIL Bruno Broucker, Sarah Geens, Christophe Goethals, Hondeghem Annie, Anne Drumeaux: Developing Public Management Expertise in the Belgian Federal Administration. A Partnership between Multiple Stakeholders Denita Cepiku: Two Ships Passing in the Night? Academia and Practice in Public Management Gunilla Edel Tribe: Questions of Facts: Fact-finding, burden of proof and quality of Justice Frans van Nispen: Budgetary Innovation: A New Role for the Court of Audit January Hakvoort, Henk Klaassen: Accountability in the public sector. An efficient route towards more transparency? Yuri Biondi: How to Make the Public Sector Accountable? A Conceptual Assessment Of The New French Government Accounting Standards Hector Arambula: Accountability for Performance in Public Sector Organizations: A Theoretical Review and a Research proposal Young-Jin Ham: Understanding Performance Measurement in the Social Housing Sector in England: the Case of Housing Associations Friederike Nebel: (Old) and Public Administration (New) Management Concepts, Analyzing a Complex interrelations Julien of Ostaaijen: Policy Discretion in Dutch Local Government: A Rotterdam Regime Change? Tommaso Palermo: Management Innovations in the Italian Central Government, The Case of Performancebased Rewards Vadym Pyrozhenko: Weak Forms Organizationsl bridging of Civil Society and Public Organizations: How the spiritually-driven Natural Childbirth Movement Improved Maternity Practices in Ukraine Jingjit Rutaichanok: Analysis of Organizational Culture and Outcomes of Public Management Reform Based on the Competing Values Framwork: Implications for Future Innovation Strategies Lukas Schmucki: Reforming Parliamentary Practices: Changes in Parliament in the Course of Administrative Reform J.C.V. van der Veer: Manufacturing Local Governance: Understanding Dutch Municipalities' design of new Social Support Arrangements Miguel Angelo Rodrigues Vilela: Mechanisms of Governance: Coordination Strategies in Portuguese Local Governments Anne Marie Berg: Organizing for innovation - autonomy versus control in public sector organizations Yetano, Ana, Acerete, Basilio, Royo, Sonja: WHAT IS DRIVING THE INCREASING PRESENCE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION INITIATIVES? P.H. Eshuis, A. P. Mouser: How innovative is the public sector? Lessons to be Learned on the basis of a crosssectoral evaluation Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 76 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Monica Dimitriu: Bringing citizens closer to public administration. Innovative ideas leading to an increased public participation within the decision making process Lars Fuglsang, John Storm Pedersen: How different is public and private innovation? Gnan Luca, Alessandro hinna, Debora Tomasi: BOARDS 'BEHAVIOR RELEVANCE ON PUBLIC SECTOR INNOVATION PROCESSES. Theoretical issues for a new research agenda Kattel raiser, Liisa Vask: What is public sector innovation? Fabio Monteduro, Alessandro hinna: STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE AND INNOVATIONS IN GOVERNANCE Wilma van der Scheer, Mirko Noordegraaf, Pauline Meurs: Institutional innovations in health care. How health care executives PERCEIVE Pursue innovation and legitimation Georgios Vardaxoglou, Mira Slavova, David Allen, Tom Wilson: Perceptions and adoption of technological innovations in UK public safety organizations: the case of introducing location services in the police General Papers: Rhys Andrews, Gene Brewer: Capacity Management and Public Service Performance: Evidence from the U.S. States Mark Considline, Jenny Lewis, Damon Alexander: Innovation Inside Government: The importance of networks Martial Pasquier, Blaise Larpin: The Governance of Academic Networks in Switzerland Haiko van der Voort, Joop Koppenjan, at Heuvelhof Ernst, Martijn Leijten, Wijnand Veeneman: Institutionalising Learning Capacity in the Management of Innovative Projects: The Case of the RandstadRail Project Merlijn van Hulst, Lasse Gerrits: DREAM ON: The use of the `vision 'concept for governing networks Joris Voets, Filip de Rynck: Exploring the innovative capacity of inter-governmental network managers: the art of boundary scan and boundary tension Robin Keast, Myrna Mandell: What Drives Networks: Institutional, Instrumental and Interpersonal Underpinning Rebecca Moody: Assessing the Role of Geographical Information Systems in Flood Prediction. How Innovations in Flood Prediction Stream towards Calendar Status. Salskov Dorte Iversen: Authority Innovation: The Case of Local Government Environmental Management at the Eve of the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit 2009 Erkki Karo, Tarmo Kalvet: Innovation around New Concepts and Implications for Policy Innovation: The Case of Open Innovation in Estonia Special Sesson - Innovation in Water Governance: Art Dewulf, Rene Bouwen: Frames, scales and actors A case study of collaborative water governance in Southern Ecuador Jurian Edelenbos, Arwin van Buuren, Nienke van Schie, Erna Ovaa: Water management: knowledge production between experts and stakeholders. A comparison of three water cases in The Netherlands Arwin van Buuren, Ytsen Deelstra, Jos van Nistelrooy, Angela Gomes, Wijnand Smulders: Innovation Capacity of Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 77 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies the Water Sector in Canada, Portugal and South Africa S.V. Meijerink, S.G. Nooteboom, C.J.A.M. Termeer: Real Barriers to Climate Adaptation. A systems approach to learn about new modes of governance Tamara Metze: Credibility contests between government and governance-discourse-discourse: a study of boundary work in network governance to improve the air and water quality in rural Wisconsin (USA) Jacko van Ast, Jan Jaap Bouma: Value Based Governance in Water Management Sonja van der Arend: Dreaming of water bodies: the politics of governance innovations WFD Erkki Karo, Tarmo Kalvet: Innovation around New Concepts and Implications for Policy Innovation: The Case of Open Innovation in Estonia Rainer Kattel, Tarmo Kalvet and Tiina Randma-Liiv: Small States and Innovation Catrien Termeer, Remco Kranendonk: Governance of regional innovations towards sustainability Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 78 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies C. Innovation in the Public Sector References to Prior Studies Abbott, A. (1997) ‘Of time and space: the contemporary relevance of the Chicago School’, Social Forces 75:4, pp1149-1182 Addicott, R., McGivern, G. and Ferlie, E. (2006) ‘Networks, organizational learning and knowledge management: NHS cancer networks’, Public Money & Management, 26 (2): 87-94. Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century (2008) Innovation Measurement. Tackling the State of Innovation in the American Economy. Report to the US Department of Commerce. http://www.innovationmetrics.gov Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1968). Organizational Independence and Intraorganizational Structure. American Sociological Review, 33, 912-930. Albury, D. (2005) ‘Fostering innovation in public services’, Public Money and Management, 25:1, pp51-56 Aldrich, H. E. and Fiol, C. M. (1994): “Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation.”, Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), pp. 645-670. Allnock, D., Tunstill, J. et al. (2005): Implementing Sure Start Local Programs: An In-Depth Study Part Two - A Close Up on Services - A synthesis of data across the Implementation Module (2002-2004) http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/documents/Activities/implementation/862.pdf Altschuler, A.A. (1997) ‘Public innovation and political incentives’, Occasional paper 1- 97, Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard. Altshuler, A. (1997) ‘Bureaucratic innovation, democratic accountability, and political incentives’, pp38-67 in A.Altshuler and R.Behn (eds.) Innovation in American government: challebges, opportunities, and dilemmas, Washington DC, Brookings Institution Amabile, T.M. (1996) ‘How to kill creativity’,Harvard Business Review, Sept-Oct, pp 77–87. Amis, J., Slack, T. and Hinings, C. R. (2004) ‘The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change’,Academy of Management Journal 47 (1): 15-39. Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235-258. Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55 (September/October), 115-25. Asgarkhani, Mehdi (2005) ‘Digital Government and its Effectiveness in Public Management Reform’, Public Management Review, 7 (3): 465–487. Audit Commission (2007) Seeing the Light. London: Audit Commission. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 79 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Barber, B.R. (1998) ‘A place for us: how to make society civil and democracy strong’, Hill and Wang, New York. Bartlett, D., Corrigan, P., Dibben, P., Franklin, S., Joyce, P., McNulty, T. and Rose, A. (1999) ‘Preparing for Best Value’, Local Government Studies, 25 (2): 102-118. Bate, P. and Robert, G. (2002) ‘Knowledge management and communities of practice in the private sector: lessons for modernizing the National Health Service in England and Wales’, Public Administration, 80 (4): 643-663. Beck, Ernest (2008) ‘How to Measure Innovation’, Business Week, 16 July. Behn, Robert D. (1997) ‘The Dilemmas of Innovation in American Government’ in Altshuler, Alan A. and Behn, Robert D. (eds) (1997) Innovation in American Government: Challenges, Opportunities and Dilemmas. Washington DC: Brookings Institution: 3-37. Bekkers, V.J.J.M. and Homburg, V.M.F. (eds) (2005) The Information Ecology of E-Government: EGovernment as Institutional and Technological Innovation in Public Administration. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Bekkers, V.J.J.M., van Duivenboden, Hein and Thaens, Marcel (2006) Information And Communication Technology And Public Innovation: Assessing the ICT-driven Modernization of Public Administration. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Bennis, W. G. and Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper and Row. Berman, Evan M. (2006) Performance and Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Armonk NY:M.E. Sharpe. Bhatta, G. (2003) ‘Don’t just do something, stand there! - Revisiting the Issue of Risks in Innovation in the Public Sector’, available at: www.innovation.cc/peerreviewed/bhattarisks.pdf Blank, Jos L.T. (ed.) (2000) Public provision and performance: contributions from efficiency and productivity measurement. Amsterdam, Oxford: Elsevier. Booker, C. (2004) The seven basic plots: why we tell stories London, Continuum Borins, S. (2000) ‘Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprise leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp 498-507. Borins, S. (2001) ‘The Challenge of Innovating in Government’, The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government, Feb 2001, Arlington, Virginia. Borins, S. (2001). Innovation, success and failure in public management research: some methodological reflections. Public Management Review, 3 (1), 318. Borins, S. (2001). ‘Public Management innovation in economically advanced and developing countries’ International Review of Administrative Sciences. 67(4): 715-731 Borins, S. (ed.) (2008) Innovations in government: research, recognition and replication, Washington DC, Brookings Institution Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 80 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Borins, S., Encouraging Innovation in the Public Sector, Journal of Intellectual Capital 2(3) (2001), 310–319. Boyne, George, Martin, Steve and Walker, Richard (2004) ‘Explicit reforms, implicit theories and public service improvement’, Public Management Review, 6 (2): 189-210. Bozeman, D. P. et. al. (1996). An examination of reactions to perceptions of organizational politics. Paper presented at the 1996 Southern Management Association Meetings, New Orleans. Brannan, T., Durose, C., John, P. & Wolman, H. (2006) ‘Assessing Best Practice as a means of Innovation’, available at: www.ipeg.org.uk/papers/UAA%20paperfi nal%2017%20Apr il%2006.pdf Bratton, W. and Andrews, W. (2001) ‘Leading for innovation and results in police departments’, in Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. and Somerville, I. (eds) Leading for Innovation. Berlin: Wiley VCH: 251-62. Brenner, T. & Greif, S. (2006) ‘The Dependence of Innovativeness on the Local Firm Population – An Empirical Study of German Patents’ in Industry and Innovation, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp 21-39, March 2006. Breton, A. (1999) Competitive Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brodtirick, O. (2001) ‘Some thoughts on definitions of Innovation’, for the Editorial Board of the Innovation Journal in The Innovation Journal, Nov 20 1999, updated Aug 11 2001, available at: www.innovation.cc/ discussionpapers/thoughts-innovation.htm Brunsson, Nils and Olsen, Johan P. (1993) The Reforming Organization. London: Routledge. Burke, W. (2002) ‘Organization Change. Theory and Practice’, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, USA. Cabinet Office (2008) Excellence and fairness: Achieving world class public services. London: The Stationary Office. Callon, M. (1980) ”The State and Technical Innovation. A Case Study of the Electrical Vehicle in France”, Research Policy 9 (1980): 358-376. Callon, M. (1992) “The Dynamic of Techno-Economic Networks”, chap. 4 in R. Coombs, P. Saviotti and V. Walsh (eds): Technological Change and Company Strategies, pp. 72-102. London: Academic Press. Callon, M. (1995) “Four models for the dynamic of science”, Chap. 2 in J., Sheila et.al: Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Camison-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcami, R. Segarra-Cipres, M. and BoronatNavarro, M. (2004) ‘A meta-analysis of innovation and organizational size’, Organization Studies 25 (3): 331-61. Campbell, Tim and Fuhr, Harald (2004) Leadership and Innovation in Subnational Government: Case Studies from Latin America. New York: World Bank Publications. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 81 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Carayannis, E.G., Alexander, J. and Ioannidis, A. (2000) ‘Leveraging knowledge, learning, and innovation in forming strategic government-university-industry (GUI) R&D partnerships in the US, Germany, and France’, Technovation, 20 (9): 477-488. Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. (1995): “On the nature, function and composition of technological systems”, in B. Carlsson (ed): Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Carlsson, B., S. Jacobsson, M. Holmén and A. Rickne (2002). "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues.", Research Policy 31: 233-245. Caruana, A., Ewing, M.T. and Ramasehan, B. (2002) Effects of some environmental challenges and centralization on the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of public sector entities. The Service Industries Journal, 22 (2), 43-58. Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B., and Ewing, M.T. (1999). Market Orientation and Performance in the Public Sector: The Role of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Global Marketing, 12 (3), 59-79. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J. & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (3), 239-256. Chapman, Jake (2002) System Failure. Why governments must learn to think differently, DEMOS, London. Christensen, T. and Lærgreid, P. (2001): New Public Management: the Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate Coccia, Mario (2004) ‘New models for measuring the R&D performance and identifying the productivity of public research institutes’, R&D Management, 34 (3): 267-280. Cohen, S. and Eimicke, W. (1998) Tools for Innovators: Creative Strategies for Managing Public Sector Organizations. San Fransisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Common, Richard (2004) 'Organisational learning in a political environment', Policy Studies Journal, 25 (1): 35-49. 37 Compagnon, J. (2001) The Normandy landings: the strategic victory of World War II, Rennes, Éditions Ouest-France Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. A. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Cooksey, David (2006) A Review of UK Health Research Funding. London: The Stationary Office. Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J. and Bentley, L. (2003) ‘Managing soft change projects in the public sector’, International Journal of Project Management, 21 (6): 443-448. Costa P.T., Jr., and McCrae R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional. Manual. Odessa, FL: psychological Assessment Resources. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) ‘Flow, The Psychology of Optimal Experience’, Harper & Row, New York. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 82 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Cunningham, Miriam (2005) Innovation and the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Currie, G. and Suhomlinova, O. (2006) ‘The impact of institutional forces upon knowledge sharing in the UK NHS: The triumph of professional power and the inconsistency of policy’, Public Administration, 84 (1): 1-30. Czarniawska, Barbara and Sevón, Guje (1996) Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Damanpour, F and Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 15 (1): 1-24. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal 34 (3): 555-90. Damanpour, F. (1992) ‘Organizational Size and Innovation’, Organization Studies, 13 (3): 375-402. Damanpour, F. and Evan, W.M. (1984) ‘Organizational Innovation and Performance: The Problem of “Organizational Lag”’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29 (3): 392-409. Damanpour, F. and Schneider, M. (2006) ‘Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers’, British Journal of Management, 17: 215-36. Darzi, A. (2008) High Quality Care For All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. London: Department for Health. Davies, H., Nutley, S. & Smith, P. (2000) ‘What Works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services’, The Policy Press, Bristol. Davies, H., Nutley, S. and Smith, P. (2000) What Works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: The Policy Press. Dees, J., Anderson, B. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2002) ‘Pathways to Social Impact: Strategies for Scaling Out Successful Social Innovations’ Working paper no. 3 for Centre for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship,August 2002, available at www.fuqua.duke. edu/centers/case/documents/workingpaper3. pdf Dekker, S. and Hansen, D. (2004) ‘Learning under pressure: The effects of politicization onorganizational learning in public bureaucracies’, Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory, 14 (2): 211-230. den Hertog, J. F. and Huizenga, E. (2000): The Knowledge Enterprise. Implementation of Intelligent Business Strategies. London: Imperial College Press. Denhardt, J. and Denhardt, R. (2002) ‘Creating a Culture of Innovation: 10 Lessons from America’s Best Run City’, available at: www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/ denhardtreport.pdf Deshpande, R. and Farley, J. U. (1998). Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and Synthesis. Journal of Market Focused Management 2, 21332. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 83 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1982). Factors affecting the use of market research information: A path analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 14-31. Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U and Webster, F. E., Jr. (1993). Corporate Culture Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing 57(1), 23-7. Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U and Webster, F. E., Jr. (1997). Factors Affecting Organizational Performance: A Five-country Comparison. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Report, 97-108. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Tests of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677-695. Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. (1984). Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures: the Case of the Privately-held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5, (JulySeptember), 265-273. Diamantopoulos, A & Hart, S. (1993). Linking market orientation and company performance: preliminary evidence on Kohli and Jaworski’s framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1, 93-121. Diamantopoulos, A. & Cadogan, J. W. (1996). Internationalizing the market orientation construct: an in-depth interview approach. Journal of Strategic Marketing 4, 23-52. DiMaggio, Paul J. and Powell, Walter D. (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Doig, J.W. (1997) ‘Leadership and innovation in the administrative state’, International Journal of Public Administration, 20 (4 and 5): 861-879. Dois, G et al 1998: Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London and NY Doucet, C. (2002) ‘The World Social Forum II and the Local Authorities for Social Inclusion Forum II’, A Report prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Ottawa, Canada. Dunham, R.B. and Pierce, J.L. (1989) Management. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. (2006) ‘New public management is dead -long live digital-era governance’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (3): 467-94. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J.M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517554. Earl, L (2002): Innovation and Change in the Public Sector: A Seeming Oxymoron. Survey of Electronic Commerce and Technology. Statistics Canada, Ottawa. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 84 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Earl, L. (2004) An historical comparison of technological change, 1998-2000 and 2000-2002, in the private and public sectors. Statistics Canada, Ottawa. Edquist, C. (1997): Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London and Washington: Pinter. ESRC (2007) Innovation: Learning from ESRC research. Swindon: ESRC. Eyob, Ephrem (2004) ‘E-government: breaking the frontiers of inefficiencies in the public sector’, Electronic Government, an International Journal, 1 (1): 107– 114. Fagerberg, Jan, Mowery, David C. and Nelson, Richard R. (2006) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farazmand, Ali (2004) ‘Innovation in Strategic Human Resource Management: Building Capacity in the Age of Globalization’, Public Organization Review, 4 (1): 3-24. Feeney, Melisah (2004) Organisational innovation in mobilizing resources within Third-Sector organizations: uncoiling the complexities. Paper presented to the STR Sixth International Conference, Toronto, Canada, 11-14 July. Fernandez, Sergio, and Rainey, Hal G. (2006) ‘Managing Successful Organizational Change in the Public Sector’, Public Administrative Review, 168 (March/April ): 9. Ferrand, A. (1997) Arromanches: history of a harbour: Mulberry harbour, Cully, OREP Ferris, G.R and Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116. Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S., & Fandt, P.M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R.A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression Management in the Organization (p.143-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Finger, M. and Brand, S.B. (1999) ‘The concept of the “Learning Organization” applied to the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development (2005) Making Finland a Leading Country in Innovation. Sitra, Finland: FNFRD. Fiorino, D. J. (2001). Environmental policy as learning: A view of an old landscape. Public Administration Review, 61(3): 322-335. Folger, R., Konovsky, M.A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, (p. 129-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Foray, Domique and Freeman, Christopher 1993: Technology and the wealth of nations, Pinter, London and NY Ford, C. M. (2002). The futurity of decisions as a facilitator of organizational creativity and change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 15(6), 635-646. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 85 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Frambach, R. and Schillewaert, N. (2003). Organizational Innovation Adoption: A Multi-level Framework of Determinants and Opportunities for Future Research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 163 - 176. Frost P.J. & C. P. Egri (1991): “The political process of innovation” in Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 13, pp. 229-295. Gavetti, Gi. and Levinthal, D. (2000). Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(1), 113137. Georghiou, L. (2007) Demanding Innovation: Lead markets, public procurement and innovation. London: NESTA. Glass, N. (1999) ‘Sure Start: The Development of an Early Intervention Program for Young Children in the United Kingdom’ , Children and Society, 13: 257-264. Glass, N. (1999): “Origins of the Sure Start Program”, Children & Society, Vol 13, http://www.surestart.gov.uk/surestartservices/settings/fundedsettings/surestart localprograms/history/ Glor, E. (1997) ‘Strategies for creating an innovative public sector’, The Innovation Journal, available at: www.innovation.cc/ books/guide_innovate_organization.pdf Glor, E. (2006) ‘A Gardener Innovator’s Guideto Innovating in Organizations’, The Innovation Journal, available at: www.innovation.cc/discussionpapers/strats.htm Golden, P. A., Doney, P. M., Johnson, D. M., & Smith, J. R. (1995). The dynamics of a marketing orientation in transition economies: a study of Russian firms. Journal of International Marketing, 3 (2), 29-49. Goldsmith, Stephen and Eggers, William D. (2004) Governing by Network: The New Shape of the PublicnSector. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Golembiewski, R.T., & Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational Innovation and the Science/Craft of Management, In M. A. Rahim, R.T. Golembiewski, & K.D. Mackenzie (Eds.). Current Topics in Management, Vol. 5, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 263-280. Gopalarakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (1997). A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 25 (1), 15-29. Gordillo, G. and Andersson, K. (2004) ‘From policy lessons to policy actions: Motivation to take evaluation seriously’, Public Administration and Development, 24 (4): 305-320. Grady, D. (1992) ‘Promoting Innovations in the Public Sector’, Public Productivity and Management Review, 16 (2): 157-171. Grandey, A. (2003). When ‘the show must go on’: surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal 46(1), 86-96. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 86 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Gray, V. (1973) ‘Innovation in the states: A diffusion study’, American Political Science Association, 67 (4): 1174-1185. Green L, Howells J, Miles I, Services and Innovation: Dynamics of Service Innovation in the European Union, Final Report December 2001 PREST and CRIC University of Manchester Green, L. (2004) ‘Commission of Health Improvement report on Healthcare. delivery initiative: NHS Direct – a victim of its own success?’, PublinPost, available at: www. step.no/publin/publinpost/publinpost-04.pdf Green, L. Howells, J. and Miles, I. (2001). Services and Innovation: Dynamics of Service Innovation in the European Union, Final Report December 2001 PREST and CRIC University of Manchester Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P. & Kyriakidou, O. (2004) ‘Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations: Systematic Review and Recommendations’, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 4, available at www.milbank.org/quarterly/ 8204feat.html Greenley, G. E. (1995). Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. British Journal of Management 6, 1-13. Green-Pedersen, C. (2002) ‘New public management reforms of the Danish and Swedish welfare states: The role of different social democratic responses’, Governance-an International Journal of Policy and Administration, 15 (2): 27194. Greve, Henrich B. (2003) Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioural Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grønhaug, Kjell and Mikkelsen, Aslaug (1999) ‘Measuring Organizational Learning Climate: A Cross- National Replication and Instrument Validation Study Among Public Sector Employees’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19 (4): 31-44. Guellec, Dominique and Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno (2004) ‘From R&D to Productivity Growth: Do the Institutional Settings and the Source of Funds of R&D Matter?’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66 (3): 353378. Hall, P. (1998) ‘Cities in Civilisation’, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. Halligan, John (2004) ‘The Quasi-Autonomous Agency in an Ambiguous Environment: The Centrelink Case’, Public Administration and Development, 24: 147-156. Halpern, G, (1998) ‘From Hubris to Reality: Evaluating Innovative Programs in Public Institutions’ in The Innovation Journal, Nov 1998, updated Oct 2001, available at: www.innovation.cc/peer-reviewed/halp4.htm Hamalainen, Timo J. and Heiskala, Risto (2007) Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Making Sense of Structural Adjustment Processes in Industrial Sectors, Regions and Societies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 87 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Hansen, Morten Balle, and Borgen, Svein Ole (1998) ‘The Simultaneous Diffusion and Transformation of Management Ideas.’ Paper presented at the SCANCOR Conference: Samples of the Future. At Stanford University, 20-22 September. Hartley, J. (2005) ‘Innovation in governance and public services: past and present’, Public Money and Management, 25:1, pp27-34 Hartley, J. (2006) ‘Innovation and improvement in Local Government’ available at: www.ipeg.org.uk/presentations/bp_jean_hartley_pres.pdf?PHPSESSID=f3f227c1 9c18b 31719e4b0c170ce2489 Hartley, J. and Benington, J. (2006) ‘Copy and paste, or graft and transplant? Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational networks’, Public Money and Management, 26 (2) 101-108. Hartley, J. and Rashman, L. (2007) ‘How is knowledge transferred between organizations involved in change?’ in Wallace, M., Fertig, M. and Schneller, E. (eds) (2007) Managing Change in the public services. Oxford: Blackwell. Haynes, P. (2005) ‘New Development: The demystification of knowledge management for public services’, Public Money and Management, 25 (2): 131135. Herzberg, F. (1968) ‘One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?’ Harvard Business Review, Sept/Oct, pp 87-96. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. and Somerville, I. (2001) Leading for Innovation. San Francisco CA: Jossey- Bass. Hill, H.C. (2003) ‘Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats' resources for reform’, Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory, 13 (3): 265-282. HM Treasury (2005) Cox Review of Creativity in Business: building on the UK’s strengths. London: The Stationary Office. Holmstrom, Radhika (2008) ‘Funding story: Innovation’, Third Sector, 4 March. Hood, Christoffer, and Peters, B. Guy (2004) ‘The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14 (3): 267-82. Hood, Christopher (1991) ‘A public management for all seasons?’, Public Administration, 69 (Spring 1991): 3-19. Horibe, F. (2001) Creating the Innovation Culture: Leveraging Visionaries, Dissenters and Other Useful Troublemakers in Your Organization. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons. Howell, J. M. and Higgins, C. A. (1990): “Champions of Change: Identifying, Understanding, and Supporting Champions of Technological Innovations”, Organizational Dynamics; Summer, Vol. 19. Issue 1 Howell, J.M., Shea, C.M., and Higgins, C.A. (2005): “Champions of product innovations: Defining, developing and validating a measure of champion behavior”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 20, Issue 5, pp.641-661 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 88 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Huber, G.P. (1991), Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures, Organization Science, 2, 89-115 Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight. G.A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429- 438. Hult, G.T.M., Nichols, E.L. Jr., Ginuipero, L.C. and Hurley, R.F. (2000). Global Organizational Learning in the Supply Chain: A Low versus a High Learning Study. Journal of International Marketing, 8 (3), 61-83. Hunt, B. and Ivergard, T. (2007) ‘Organizational climate and workplace efficiency - Learning from performance measurement in a public-sector cadre organization’, Public Management Review, 9 (1): 27-47. Hurley, R.F. and Hult, G.T.M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62 (3), 42-54. Hutton, John (2008) The real value of the Third Sector. Speech by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to the ACEVO's Spring Conference, London, 13 March. IDeA (2005) ‘Innovation in Public Services Literature Review’, available at www.ideaknowledge.gov.uk/idk/aio/1118552 James, Oliver and Lodge, Martin (2003) ‘The Limitations of 'Policy Transfer' and 'Lesson Drawing' for Public Policy Research’, Political Studies Review, 1 (2): 179–193. Javidan, M. and Waldman, D.A. (2003). Exploring Charismatic Leadership in the Public Sector: Measurement and Consequences. Public Administration Review, 63 (2), 229-242. Jaworski, B. J. and Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing 57(3), 53-70. Johnson, H. and Thomas, A. (2007) ‘Individual learning and building organisational capacity for development’, Public Administration and Development, 27 (1): 39-48. Jones, Lawrence R. and Thompson, Fred (2007) From Bureaucracy to Hyperarchy in Netcentric and Quick Learning Organisations. New York: Information Age Publishing. Julius, DeAnne (2008) Understanding the Public Services Industry: How big, how good, where next? London: Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Kacmar K.M. & Carlson D.S., (1994). Further Validation of perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Paper Presented at annual meeting of Academy of Management, Dallas, Texas. Kacmar, K.M., & Ferris, G.R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): Development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193-205. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 89 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Kakabadse, N.K. and Kakabadse, A. (2003) ‘Developing reflexive practitioners through collaborative inquiry: a case study of the UK civil service’, International Review Of Administrative Sciences, 69 (3): 365-383. Kamarck, E. C. (2004) ‘Government Innovation around the World, Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation’, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, November 2004. Kao, J. (2001) ‘Reinventing innovation: A perspective from the idea factory’, Kao, J. (2001) ‘Reinventing innovation: A perspective from the idea factory’, in Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. and Somerville, I. (eds), Leading for Innovation and Organizing for Results. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Kay, A. (2006) The dynamics of public policy: theory and evidence, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Kelman, S. (2008) ‘The “Kennedy School School” of research on innovation in government’ pp28-51 in S. Borins (ed.) (2008) Innovations in government: research, recognition and replication, Washington DC, Brookings Institution Kelman, Steven (2005) Unleashing change: a study of organizational renewal in government. Washington DC:Brookings Institution Press. Keston, J. (1992) ‘Dimensions of Excellence:Changing Organizational Culture’ Public Manager, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp 17-20. Kettl, Donald F. (1996) Civil service reform: building a government that works. Washington DC: BrookingsInstitution Press. Kettl, Donald F. and DiIulio, John J. Jr. (eds) (1995) Inside the reinvention machine: appraising governmental reform. Washington DC: Brookings Institution. Khosrowpour, Mehdi (2005) Practicing e-government: A Global Perspective. Paris: OECD. Kim, H.J., Pan, G. and Pan, S.L. (2007) ‘Managing IT-enabled transformation in the public sector: A case study on e-government in South Korea’, Government Information Quarterly, 24 (2): 38-352. King N. (1990). Innovation at work: the research literature. In: M. A. West and J. L. Farr (eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work. England: Wiley publications. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Exploration in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology 65, 440452. Klein, K. J. and Sorra, J. S. (1996) ‘The Challenge of Innovation Implementation’, Academy of Management Review, 21: 1055-80. Knight, G.A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial orientation, Journal of Business Venturing. 12 (3), 213-225. 211 Koch, Hauknes and Røste 2003: “Rationalities and innovation policy learning”, in Goodnip - Good Practices in Nordic Innovation Policies Part 2: Innovation Policy Trends and Rationalities, Oslo 2003, www.step.no/goodnip. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 90 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Koch, Norgren and Oksanen 2003: GoodNIP Good Practices in Nordic Innovation Policies – Summaries and Policy Recommendations, Oslo 2003 (www.step.no/goodnip). Koch, Per and Hauknes, Johan (2005) On innovation in the public sector – today and beyond. Publin Report No. D20. Oslo: Publin. Kohli, A. K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing 54(2), 1-18. Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A Measure of Market Orientation. Journal of Marketing Research 30(4), 467-77. Kraemer, K., and King, J. (2003) ‘Information Technology and Administrative Reform: will the time after e-Government be different?’ Centre for Research on Information Technology and Organisations, University of California, Irvine. Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D. and Weaver, K.M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26 (4), 71-94. Lam, Alice (2000), Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework, Organisation studies 21, 487-513. Landry, C. (1999) ‘Being Innovative against the Odds’, available from www.charleslandry. com/index.php?l=freebies Landry, C. (2006) ‘The Art of Making Cities’, Earthscan, London. Langford, J. and Seaborne, K. (2003) ‘To click or not to click: E-learning for the public sector’, Canadian Public Administration, 46 (1): 50-75. Latour, B. (1987): Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979): Laboratory life, The Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Leeuw, Frans L., Rist, Ray C. and Sonnichsen, Richard C. (eds) (1994) Can governments learn?: comparative perspectives on evaluation and organizational learning. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Light, P. (1998) Sustaining Innovation: Creating Nonprofit and Government Organizations that Innovate Naturally. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Lindblom, Charles E. and Cohen, David K. (1989) Useable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem- Solving (New Haven: Yale University Press). Lissenburgh, Stephen and Marsh, Alan (2003) Experiencing Jobcentre Plus Pathfinders: Overview Of Early Evaluation Evidence. London: Policy Studies Institute for the DWP. Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management journal 21(1), 135-172. Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 91 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429451. Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E.S. and Dalum, B. (2002): “National systems of production, innovation and competence building.”, Research Policy 31, pp. 213-231. Lundvall, B-Å (ed) (1992): National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter. Lynch, K. (1999) ‘Innovation and risk taking: An Industry Canada perspective’, The Innovation Journal, May 1999, updated Aug 2001, available at www.innovation. cc/discussion-papers/risk1.htm Lynch, Thomas D. and Cruise, Peter L. (2005) Handbook of Organization Theory and Management: The Philosophical Approach. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press. Lynn, G., Morone, J. and Paulson, A. (1996). Marketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe and learn process. California Management Review, 38, 837. Maddock, S. & Morgan, G. (1998) ‘Barriers to Transformation: Beyond Bureaucracy and the Market Conditions for Collaboration’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 234-251(18). Maddock, S. (2002) ‘Making Modernisation Work: New Narratives, Change Strategies &People Management in the Public Sector’, Journal of Public Sector Management, 2002, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 13-43 (2002 Emerald Award for Outstanding Paper on Public Management). Maddock, S. and Morgan, G. (1998) ‘Barriers to Transformation: Beyond Bureaucracy and the Market Conditions for Collaboration’, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11 (4): 234-251. Malerba, F. (2002): “Sectoral systems of innovation and production”, Research Policy 31 (2), pp. 247-264. Malerba, F. (2004). “Sectoral systems of innovation: basic concepts”, pp. 9-14 in F. Malerba: Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Malerba, F. and L. Orsenigo (1993): ”Technological regimes and firm behavior.”, Industrial and Corporate Change 2(1), pp. 45-71. Manley, K. (2001) Innovation in the public sector. Queensland Innovation Council/Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. March, J. G. (1981) ‘Footnotes to Organizational Change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (4): 563-77. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley. March, James G. (1992) ‘The Evolution of Evolution’, in Baum, J. and Singh, J. (ed.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Mason, W. M., House, J. S., & Martin, S.S. (1985). On the dimensions of political alienation in America. Sociological Methodology, 15, 111-151. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 92 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies McCrae, R.R (1987). Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, ( 6), 1258-1265. McLoughlin, I., Wilson, R., et al (2004) ‘Enacting Technology: from “Building” the Virtual State to “Architecting” Infrastructures for the Integration of Public Service Delivery?’, Paper prepared for workshop on Information, Knowledge and Management – Re-assessing the role of ICTs in public and private organizations, 3-5 March, SSPA Bologna, Italy. McMahon E. J. (2005): “New York Crime Hits a Tipping Point”, City Journal, Winter 2005, http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_ny_crime.html McNabb, David E. (2006) Knowledge Management in the Public Sector: A Blueprint for Innovation in Government. Armonk NY: M.E. Sharpe. Meyer, John W. (1996) ‘Otherhood: The Promulgation and Transmission of Ideas in the Modern Organizational Environment’, in Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (ed.), Translating Organizational Change, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 241-252. Michaels, S., Goucher, N.P. and McCarthy, D. (2006) ‘Policy windows, policy change, and organizational learning: Watersheds in the evolution of watershed management’, Environmental Management, 38 (6): 983-992. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mintzberg, H. (1983) Structures in five. New York: Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H. (2007) Tracking strategies: towards a general theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press Mohr, L.B. (1969) ‘Determinants of innovation in organizations’, American Political Science Review, 63 (1): 111-126. Moore, M. (2005) ‘Break-through innovations and continuous improvement: two different models of innovative processes in the public sector’, Public Money and Management, 25:1, pp35-50 Moore, M. and Hartley, J. (2008) ‘Innovations in governance’, Public Management Review 10:1, pp3-20 Morgan, R.E. and Strong, C.A. (2003). Business performance and dimensions of strategic orientation. Journal of Business Research, 56, 163-176. Morgen, M. (2006) How to create an innovative society. Copenhagen: Danish Innovation Council. Morris, M.H. and Paul, G.W. (1987). The Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and Marketing in Established Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247259. Moynihan, D.R. (2005) ‘Goal-based learning and the future of performance management’, Public Administration Review, 65 (2): 203-216. Muczyk, J.P. and Reinmann, B.C. (1987). The case for directive leadership. Academy of Management Executive 1, 301-311. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 93 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Mueller, G.C. McKinley, W., Mone, M.A. & V.L. Barker III (2001) ‘Organizational decline – A stimulus for innovation?’ Business Horizons, Nov/Dec 2001, Vol. 44, No. 6, p 25. Mulgan, G. (2007) Ready or not? Taking innovation in the public sector seriously, London, NESTA, April Mulgan, G.J. (2006) ‘Social Innovation’, Young Foundation, London. Mulgan, Geoff and Albury, David (2003) Innovation In The Public Sector. London: Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office. Mulgan, Geoff with Ali, Rushanara, Halkett, Richard and Sanders, Ben (2007) In and Out of Sync. London: Nesta. Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 13(6), 705-750. Munro, J et al. (1998) Evaluation of NHS Direct first wave sites: First interim report to the Department of Health, University of Sheffield: Medical Care Research Unit Myers, P. et al. (2004): Partneship working in Sure Start Local Programs. Synthesis of Early Findings from Local Program Evaluations, June 2004 Nagel, S. (2000) ‘Creativity and policy studies’, The Innovation Journal, available at www. innovation.cc/discussion-papers/creativitypolicy- studies.htm Narver, J.C. and Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing 54(4), 20-35. Narver, J.C., Jacobson, R., and Slater, S. F. (1993). Market Orientation and Business Performance: An Analysis of Panel Data. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Report Number, 93-121. National Audit Office (2006) ‘Achieving Innovation in Central Government Organisations’, available at www.nao.org.uk/ publications/nao_reports/0506/05061447i. pdf National Audit Office (2002) Government on the Web II. HC 764 Session 2001-2. London: The Stationery Office. National Audit Office (2002): NHS Direct in England, London: Stationary Office, http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/01-02/0102505.pdf National Audit Office (2007) Government on the Internet: Progress in Delivering Information and Services Online. HC 539 Session 2006-07. London: The Stationary Office. National Audit Office, (2000): Supporting Innovation: Managing Risk in Government Departments, London: The Stationery Office Nelson, R. (1993): National Systems of Innovation: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nelson, R. (1995): Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change, Journal of Economic Literature, 33, March, pp. 48-90. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 94 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Nelson, R. and Winter, S. G. (1982): An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard College: The Belknap Press of Harvard University. Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G (1982). The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited. The American Economic Review. 72 (1), 114-132. Nesta (2006) Innovation Gap Report. London: Nesta. Nesta (2007) Hidden Innovation Report. London: Nesta. Newell, S., Edelman, L., Scarborough, H., Swan, J. and Bresnen, M. (2003) 'Best Practice' development and transfer in the NHS: the importance of process as well as product knowledge, Health Services Management Research, 16, 1-12 Newman, J., Raine, J and Skelcher, C (2000) Innovation and best practice in local government: A research report. London: DETR Nice, D. (1993) ‘Policy innovation in state government’, Iowa State University Press, Iowa. Nooteboom, B. (2000) ‘Learning and Innovation in Organisations and Economies’, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nooteboom, B. (2006) ‘Trust and Innovation’, Essay written for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs as background to the 2006 Innovation Lecture on trust and innovation, available at www.bartnooteboom.nl/EZTrust% 20and%20innovation5.pdf Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd edition). NY: McGraw-Hill. Pelham, A.M. and Wilson, D.T. (1996). A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Market Structure, Firm Structure, Strategy, and Market Orientation Culture on Dimensions of Small-Firm Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24(1), 27-43. Nutley, S. and Davies, H.T.O. (2000) ‘Making a reality of evidence-based practice: Some lessons from the diffusion of innovations’, Public Money & Management, 20 (4): 35-42. Nutley, S.M. and Davies, H.T.O. (2001) ‘Developing organizational learning in the NHS’, Medical Education, 35 (1): 35-42. NZIER – New Zealand Public Sector Innovation (2002) ‘Practical prospects based on experience’, available at: www.treasury.govt. nz/innovation/nzier-nzpsi.pdf NZIER and the Simpl Group (2000) ‘Information technology projects: Lessons for the public sector in New Zealand’, Report to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. ODPM (2002): Process Evaluation of the Negotiation of Pilot Local Public Service Agreements, London: Office for Public Management http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/page/odpm _locgov_030725.pdf OECD Policy Brief, (2003): Public Sector Modernisation, October 2003 OECD Policy Brief, (2004a): Public Sector Modernisation: Changing Organisational Structures, September 2004 Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 95 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies OECD Policy Brief, (2004b): Public Sector Modernisation: Governing for Performance, October 2004 Olsen, Johan P. and Peters, B. Guy (eds) (1996) Lessons from experience: experiential learning in administrativereforms in eight democracies. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Osborne, D. and Plastrik, P. (2000): The Reinventors Fieldbook, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Osborne, P. & Flynn, N. (1997) ‘Managing the innovative capacity of voluntary and nonprofit organisations in the provision of public services’, in Public Money & Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1997. Osborne, P. (1996) ‘The Hitchhiker’s guide to innovation? Managing innovation – and other organizational processes – in an inter-agency context’, in International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 9, No. 7, pp 72-81. Osborne, S.; Chew, C. and McLaughlin, K. (2008) ‘The once and future pioneers? The innovative capacity of voluntary organizations and the provision of public services: a longitudinal approach’, Public Management Review 10:1, pp51-70 Oswald, J. (1996). Human resources, scientist, and internal reputation: The role of climate and job satisfaction. Human Relations, 49, 269-294. Pedler, M. (2002) ‘Accessing local knowledge: action learning and organizational learning in Walsall’,Human Resource Development International, 5 (4): 523-540. Phillips, Susan D., Laforest, Rachel and Graham, Andrew (2008) Getting Third Sector Financing Right in Canada?: Quiet Incrementalism and Subversive Innovation toward Reform. Paper presented to the ISTR Eighth International Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 9-12 July. Pollitt, C. (2008) Time, policy, management: governing with the past, Oxford, Oxford University Press Pope, Catherine (2006) ‘Lost in Translation: A Multi-Level Case Study of the Metamorphosis of Meanings and Action in Public Sector Organizational Innovation’, Public Administration, 84 (1): 59-76. Porter L.W, Strees R.M, Mowday R.T., & Boulian P.V., (1974) Organization commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-60. Pressman, J. and Wildawsky, A.B. (1973) Implementation. How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland: Or, Why it is Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation of Ruined Hopes. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Public Money and Management (2006) ‘Knowledge Management’ issue, Journal of Public Money and Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, Dec 2006. Public Policy Forum (1998) ‘Innovation in the federal government: The risk not taken’, in The Innovation Journal, available at www.innovation.cc/discussionpapers/risk2.htm Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 96 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Public Services Productivity Panel (2000) Public services productivity: Meeting the challenge. London: HM Treasury. Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. (2002) ‘Leading and learning? Knowledge transfer in the beacon council scheme’, Public Administration, 80 (3): 523-542. Rashman, L. and Radnor, Z. (2005) ‘Learning to improve: Approaches to improving local government services’, Public Money and Management, 25 (1): 19-26. Rashman, L., Downe, J. and Hartley, J. (2005) ‘Knowledge creation and transfer in the beacon scheme: Improving services through sharing good practice’, Local Government Studies, 31 (5): 683-700. Report to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. OECD (2005) Enhancing the performance of the services sector. Paris: OECD Publishing. Reschenthaler, G.B. and Thompson, F. (1998) ‘Public management and the learning organization’, International Public Management Journal, 1 (1): 59-106. Rogers, E. (2003) Diffusion of innovations (5th edition), New York, Free Press Romme, A.G.L. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999) ‘Circular organizing and triple loop learning’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, 12 (5): 439-453. Rose, G. M. & Shoham, A. (2002). Export performance and market orientation: establishing an empirical link. Journal of Business Research 55(3), 217-25. Rose, Richard (2004) Learning from comparative public policy: a practical guide. New York: Routledge. Rosenberg, N 1982: Inside the black box, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rosenberg, N 1994: Exploring the black box, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rosenberg, N, Landau R., and Mowery, D 1992: Technology and the Wealth of Nations, Stanford University Press, California. Rosenfeld, R. and Servo, J. C. (1990). Facilitating innovations in large organizations. In: M. A. West and J. L. Farr (eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work. England: Wiley publications. Rowe, R. and Shepherd, M. (2002) ‘Public participation in the new NHS: No closer to citizen control?’, Social Policy and Administration, 36 (3): 275-290. Ruekert, R. W. & Walker, O. C. Jr. (1987). Marketing’s interaction with other functional units: a conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing 51(1), 1-19. Sabatier, Paul. A. (1993) Policy Change over a Decade or More, in Paul A. Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith (eds.) Policy Change and Learning. An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Boulder: Westview Press, 13-39. Salaman, G. and Storey, J. (2002) ‘Managers’ Theories about the process of innovation’, Journal of Management Studies, 39 (2): 149-165. Savage, R.L. (1978) ‘Policy Innovativeness as a Trait of American States’, Journal of Politics, Vol. 40, February, pp 212-224. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 97 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Savage, R.L. (1978) ‘Policy Innovativeness as a Trait of American States’, Journal of Politics, 40 (February): 212-224. Schall E. (1997) ‘Public Sector Succession: A Strategic Approach to Sustaining Innovation’, Public Administration Review, 57 (1): 4-10. Scott, James C. (1998) Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinates of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management journal 37(3), 580-607. Selnes, F., Jaworski, B.J., and Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market Orientation in United States and Scandinavian Companies: A Cross-Cultural Study. Scandinavian Journal of Management 12(2), 139-57. Senge, P. (1990) ‘The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization’, Doubleday Currency, Toronto. Shaw, S., Macfarlane, F., Greaves, C. and Carter, Y.H. (2004) ‘Developing research management and governance capacity in primary care organizations: transferable learning from a qualitative evaluation of UK pilot sites’, Family Practice, 21 (1): 92-98. Shoham, A. & Rose, G. M. (2001). Marketing orientation: a replication and extension. Journal of Global Marketing 14(4), 2-25 Siegel, S.M. and Kaemmerer, W.F. (1978). Measuring the Perceived Support for Innovation in Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (5), 553-562. Silverman, E. B. (1999): NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative strategies in policing, Boston: Northeastern University Press Simoes, A. (2006) ‘Brazil’s National Award for Innovation in Education Management: An Incentive for Local Education Authorities to Improve Municipal Education Systems toward the Goals of the National Education Plan’, The Innovation Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3. Simon, H.A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118. Singh, Amita (2005) Administrative Reforms: Towards Sustainable Practices. London: Sage. Sitkin, S.B.; Pablo, A.L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the Determinants of Risk Behavior. Academy of Management: The Academy of Management Review, 17( 1), 9-38. Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning organization. Journal of Marketing 59(3), 63-74. Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1996). Competitive Strategy in the MarketFocused Business. Journal of Market Focused Management 1(2), 159-74. Smith, D. and Bratton, W. (2002): Performance Management in New York City: Compstat and the Revolution in Police Management Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 98 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies http://www.rockinst.org/publications/federalism/QuickerBetterCheaperChapter1 6.pdf Smith, K.D. and Taylor, W.G.K. (2000) ‘The learning organisation ideal in Civil Service organisations: deriving a measure’, The Learning Organization, 7 (4): 194-206. Sprinkel Grace, Kay (2005) Beyond Fundraising: New Strategies for Nonprofit Innovation and Investment. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Steil, B., Victor, D.G. & Nelson, R.R. (eds.) (2002) ‘Technological innovation and economic performance’, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Stensaker, B. (2006) ‘Governmental policy, organisational ideals and institutional adaptation in Norwegian higher education’, Studies In Higher Education, 31 (1): 43-56. Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990). A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal. 11, 17-27. Stewart. W. H. & Roth, P. L. 2001. Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1), 145- 53. Strang, David, and Soule, Sarah A. (1998) ‘Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 265-90. Strange, J. M. and Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charismatic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 13(4), 343-377. Straw, E. (2004) The Dead Generalist: Reforming the Civil Service and Public Services. London: Demos. Subramanian, A. (1996). An Explanation of Splaying. J. Algorithms 20(3), 512525. Subramanian, A. and Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational Innovativeness: Exploring the Relationship Between Organizational Determinant of Innovation, Types of Innovations, and Measures of Organizational Performance. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 24(6), 631-647. Sullivan, H. et al. (2005): Evaluation of Local Public Service Agreements. Central-local relations and LPSAs, Working Paper 3London: ODPM www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/page/odpm_locgo v_037055.pdf Sundakov, A. and Yeabsley, J. (1999) ‘Introduction and overview’, in Sundakov, A. and Yeabsley, J. (eds.) Risk and the institutions of government. Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. Suriñach, Jordi, Moreno, Rosina and Vayá, Esther (2007) Knowledge Externalities, Innovation Clusters and Regional Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 99 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (2), 315-330. Technopolis (2005) First Annual Survey of Knowledge Transfer Activities in Public Sector Research Establishments. Report to the Office of Science and Technology. PRZZ/016/00004P. Brighton: Technopolis Limited. Technopolis (2006) Second Annual Survey of Knowledge Transfer Activities in Public Sector Research Establishments. Report to the Office of Science and Innovation. PRZZ/016/00006P. Brighton: Technopolis Limited. Technopolis (2007) Third Annual Survey of Knowledge Transfer Activities in Public Sector Research Establishments. Report to the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. PRZZ/016/00006P. Brighton: Technopolis Limited. Thomas, P. & Palfrey, C. (1996). Evaluation: Stakeholder-focused Criteria. Social Policy and Administration, 30, 25 – 42. Tierny, P., Farmer, S.M., and Graen, G.B. (1999). An Examination of Leadership and Employee Creativity: the Relevance of Traits and Relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52 (3), 591-620. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D., and O’Reilly, C.A. III. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, .37(4); 549-579. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions. Journal of Business, 59, S251-S278. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986): “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management Sciences, 32 (5), pp. 590-607. Van de Ven, A. H. et. al (1999): The Innovation Journey. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 78 79. Van de Ven, A.H., Angle, H.L. and Poole, M.S. (eds) (2000) Research on the Management of Innovation. TheMinnesota Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Veenswijk, Marcel (ed.) (2006) Organizing Innovation: New Approaches to Cultural Change and Intervention in Public Sector Organizations. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Veggeland, Noralv (2007) Paths of Public Innovation in the Global Age: Lessons from Scandinavia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Venkatmaran, N. (1989). Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises: the Construct, Dimensionality, and Measurement. Management Science, 35 (8), 942-962. Vigoda, E. (2000A). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical examination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior and in-role performances. Public Personnel Management 26, 185-210. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 100 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Vigoda, E. (2000B). The relationship between organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and implications for the public sector. Journal of Vocational Behavior 57, 326-347. Vigoda, E. (2000C). Are you being served? The responsiveness of public administration to citizens' demands: An empirical examination in Israel. Public Administration 78(1), 165-191. Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Yuval, F. (2003). Managerial Quality, Administrative Performance and Trust in Governance Revisited: a Follow-Up Study of Causality. The International Journal of Public Sector Management 16(7), 502-522. Vigoda-Gadot, E., Shoham, A., Schwabsky, N. and Ruvio, A. (2005). Public sector innovation for the managerial and the post-managerial era: Promises and realities in a globalizing public administration. International Public Management Journal, 8(1), 57-81. Vigoda-Gadot, E.; Shoham, A.; Schwabsky, N. and Ruvio, A. (2008) ‘Public sector innovation for Europe: a multinational eight-country exploration of citizens’ perspectives’, Public Administration, 86:2, pp307-329 Vince, R. and Saleem, T. (2004) ‘The Impact of Caution and Blame on Organizational Learning’, Walker, R.M. & Jeanes, E. (2001) ’Innovation in a Regulated Service – the case of English Housing associations’, Public Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp 525-550. Wallace, M., Fertig, M. and Schneller, E. (eds) (2007) Managing Change in the public services. Oxford: Blackwell. Walters, Helen (2007) ‘An Official Measure of Innovation’, Innovation, 20 April. Walters, J. (2002) ‘Understanding Innovation: What Inspires It? What Makes It Successful?’, in Mark, A. and Littman, I. (eds), Innovation. New York: Rowman & Littlefield: 13-58. Ward, N., Donaldson, A. and Lowe, P. (2004) ‘Policy framing and learning the lessons from the UVs foot and mouth disease crisis’, Environment And Planning C - Government And Policy, 22 (2): 291-306. Webster, F. E., Jr. (1988). Rediscovering the marketing concept. Business Horizons 31(May-June), 29-39. Wei-Skillern, J. & Anderson, B. (2003) ‘Non-profi t Geographic Expansion: Branches, Affi liates or both?’, Working Paper for the Centre for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, No. 4 September 2003. Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R. and Shortell, S. M. (1997) ‘Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption’, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 42 (2): 36694. Wilson, Chris, Hagarty, David and Gauthier, Julie (2004) ‘Results using the balanced scorecard in the public sector’, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 6 (1): 53-64. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates 101 Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies Windrum, Paul (ed.) (2008) Innovation In Public Sector Services: Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. World Business (2007) ‘Global Innovation Index: More on methodology. The World Business/INSEAD Global Innovation Index’, World Business, 17 January. Young Foundation (2007) Social Silicon Valleys. London: The Young Foundation. Yusoff, M.S.B.M. (2005) ‘The public service as a learning organization: the Malaysian experience’, International Review Of Administrative Sciences, 71 (3): 463-174. Yusuf, Shahid and Nabeshima, Kaoru (2006) How Universities Promote Economic Growth: Memories. New York: World Bank Publications. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J. (1973) Innovations and Organizations. New York: Wiley. Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates View publication stats