1. LIPSE: identifying drivers and barriers to social & public sector innovation
- 16 June

2. LIPSE Project: Closing Conference
Social Innovation
in the Public Sector:
Drivers &
Future Scenarios
Prof. dr. Victor Bekkers ©
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Brussels, 16th June 2016
LIPSE Project: Closing Conference

3. Outline The concept of (social) innovation
Drivers and barriers regarding social innovation in the public sector
Some recommendations: an instrumental perspective
The public sector innovation challenge
Four scenarios about the future
An institutional agenda

4. Innovation as a concept
Innovation as object: something ‘new’ that represents a discontinuity with the past that creates added value
Innovation as process: the introduction, diffusion and adoption of something new
The nature of the innovation process: transformative learning

5. Social innovation as co-creation
Societal challenges that constitute ‘wicked problems’
To produce need-oriented outcomes that really matter to citizens and companies
Open process of co-creation and collaboration with relevant stakeholders, like citizens
Game-changer: new rules, new relationships, new positions, new models that transform existing practices
Context matters: ecologies

6. The LIPSE Puzzle: themes & work packages
Trends and scenarios: the future of social innovation
Accountability,
ombudsman and audit
Co-creation citizens
Diffusion, adoption and upscaling
Risk selection and risk governance
Social innovation indicators
Innovation capacity of innovation environments: leadership and trust
Dissemi-nation of results

7. Drivers, barriers and outcomes
Environment
Pressure due to political, societal, media demands
Accountability demands
Participation in external networks
Social capital
Country specific infrastructure
Lack of reported outcomes
Different outcomes, different values (economic versus political) for different stakeholders
Outcomes of social innovation in the public sector
State and gover-nance traditions
Process of innovation
Quality of intra and inter-organizational learning process: openess
Imitation and copying
Connective and protective Leadership
Risk adversive administrative culture: risk definition and selection
(Internal )routines, procedures, rules and regulations: incompatibiliteis but also stability and protection
Slack: access and time
Willingnes and ability of citizen participation
Developing Innovation capacity as ongoing process with a virtue on its own
Diffusion process:
Geographical proximity
Mouldability
Triability
Relative advantage
Snowballing
Degree of diffusion and long lasting adoption and refinement

8. Some recommendations: an instrumental perspective
Development of multi-value and multi-stakeholder assessment approach which also take the innovation process into account
Leadership that go beyond transformative leadership: connective leadership (bridging and bonding) within and between different realms and competences
Active involvement of internal and external stakeholders in innovation self-assessments: right to challenge
Innovation is not a project or program: embeddedness in a learning organization with attention for feedback and accountability and risk governance
Create slack and access to slack resources and invest in social capital

9. Challenges: Environmental Trends
Climate change and energy transition
Dealing with inequalities
Insecurity
Populist politics and distrust in government
Migration
The public sector social innovation challenge
The global interdependent economy
Pervasiveness of digital technologies
Ageing of the population

10. The public sector innovation challenge
Societal challenges + financial austerity
Fragmentation (silos)
Integration and re-integration
Legitimacy
Efficiency and effectiveness
Trust and responsiveness
Supply driven
Demand and need driven
Passive citizen as consumer or voter
Active citizen as co-producer
Public services to be provided by the state
Public services beyond the state

11. The future: four scenarios
Degree of citizen participation: willingness
High
Low
Degree of
government participation: willingness
High
Let’s dance
Flogging a dead horse
The lone ranger
The waste land
Low

12. Let’s dance: High Willingness of Governments and Citizens
Citizens as as source of knowledge and experience that go beyond being a voter of customer
Citizens are able to voice interests , strong idea of ownership
Special attention to be paid to weak interests and weakly organized groups
Governments acknowledge that they do not have the monopoly on problem solving and need to collaborate with business and civil society. Acknowledgement of resource dependency
Government willing to go beyond existing practices (routines, etc.)
Political support
Boundary spanners inside government and in citizen groups (linking leadership)
Tradition of ‘strong’, being participatory and associative democracy, which generates mutual trust

13. Flogging a Dead Horse: Low Willingness of Citizens, High Willingness of Governments
Citizens are part of rather individualistic society, primarily focused on private goals. They have no interest in public issues and/or have disappointing past experience when participating, they experience participation as too costly.
Lack of boundary spanners within society
Governments acknowledge that citizens can be an important source of knowledge and experience and see their participation as a way to deal with distrust and legitimacy problems.
Governments acknowledge that complex problems stress the importance of collaboration.
Governments are willing to discuss existing practices as possible barriers and to develop strategies to get citizens involved

14. The Lone Ranger: High Willingness of Citizens, Low Willingness of Governments
Strong commitment of citizens to public issues: are willing and eager to participate, that provide strong feelings of public ownership
Strong reluctance of government towards collaboration and participation as well as to share power
Traditional top down view of government on society in which citizens are defined as law obedient clients and voters, while government has the monopoly on dealing with societal challenges. Embracing the primacy of politics in representative democracy
Governments question ability of citizens to voice interests and to serve the public interests
Governments stress all kinds of incompatibilities
No tradition of collaboration to generate trust
Development of two separate spheres regarding public services: state owned versus civil society owned

15. The Waste Land: Low Willingness of Citizens and Governments
Citizens live in a rather hyper individualistic society, have no clear interest in public issues and/or see it as to costly. They consider themselves primarily as a voter or a passive client
Top down view on the role of government in society and embracing the primacy of politics in representative democracy
Society and government are defined as two separate domains

16. Beyond instrumentalism: Institutional Implications
Active citizenship
Democractic anchorage and ‘thin’ democracy
Meta- governance
New forms of publicness: collaboratieve public service arrangements

17. Beyond instrumentalism: Institutional Implications
State and governance traditions
Trust
Capacity building
Agenda and strategic issue management

18. LIPSE: identifying drivers and barriers to social & public sector innovation
- 16 June

19. Innovation capacity in city governments
Theme 1:
Innovation capacity in city governments
Dr. Lykke M. Ricard & Prof. Jenny Lewis

20. Innovation capacity relates to:
Formal structures:
Political & administrative triggers - crises, competition (+)
Decentralized, corporatist governance traditions, strong civil society (+) V. Centralized, rule-bound, silo-bound legal culture (-)
Networks (informal structures):
Social networks - strength of weak ties, trust, structural holes, centrality, social capital
Networking with external organizations, boundary spanning
Q: How do informal networks (rather than formal structures) influence innovation capacity of city governments?

21. Innovation capacity & findings
Seeing the city government as innovative is linked to also seeing it as engaging in boundary spanning
More external networking associated with external focus as helping innovation
Leadership styles that is decision inclusive and allow employees to learn from mistakes (take risks) is associated with innovation capacity
Social network techniques enable us to identify the communities of practice, the cliques or clusters along with their centrally connected leaders (those with high change maker potential)

22. Figure 1:
Work with the most on projects network with level of external networking shown as node size
Figure 2:
Strategic information network with external networking shown as node size

23. Recommendations
More research and teaching in inclusive decision-makers and space creators for risk-taking
Direct leadership training towards those (the brokers) who are gathering and sharing external information to enhance the innovation capacity
Recruit the central connectors of the cliques and clusters in communities of practice (the potential change makers) into the exploitation phase of innovation to enhance the innovation capacity

24. Co-creation in European cities
Theme 2:
Co-creation in European cities
Dr. Lars Tummers, Prof. Victor Bekkers, & William Voorberg

25. Studying causes and effects of co-creation during social innovation using case studies in seven countries

26. Recommendations regarding stimulating co-creation
1. Context matters
2. Most mentioned: Financial sustainability in long term
Slovakia: “Our public administration is based on the principles of Austro-Hungarian monarchy. That means innovative solutions have no place in public policy”
Germany: Preventing radicalization of Muslim juveniles via education difficult because of curricula developed at federal & state level
Denmark: Decentralized state, informal atmosphere, easier to connect with public servants

27. Recommendations regarding the effects of co-creation
3. Measure who benefits from co-creation
4. Keep your eyes open for unexpected effects
Estonia: “…the number of people involved in planning is the same. At least the influential people. And what to think about the lack of ethnic diversity …. How can this be fair?
UK: “It gives a model that we can translate into other pieces of work what we’re undertaking beyond the reshaping care agenda.”

28. Prof. Geert Bouckaert & Wouter van Acker
Theme 3:
Mapping and analyzing the recommendations of ombudsmen, audit offices and others
Prof. Geert Bouckaert & Wouter van Acker

29. Analyzing Awarded Public Sector Innovations: The Project
Sustainable public sector innovations do exist, in the form of - Completely new processes, services or policies - Applying existing processes, services or policies in new contexts - Abolishing existing processes, services or policies
How do public sector innovations survive?
Hypothesis: Feedback information, Accountability mechanisms and Learning processes (FAL) can contribute to the sustainability of public sector innovations.

30. Scores on culture & instruments by award-winning innovations
Results
Scores on culture & instruments by award-winning innovations
Measuring FAL in 6 countries and 242 organizations with award- winning innovations
220 survived, 22 did not.
Evidence:
A culture of FAL contributes to the sustainability of public innovations
FAL instruments possibly contribute to a FAL culture
FAL culture: e.g. open discussions, positive attitude towards failure and transparency & responsibility amongst staff.
FAL instruments: e.g. performance measurement, knowledge management and internal audit.

31. Implications For academia: For practice:
Analyzing awards helps understanding public sector innovations.
Remaining questions: Do FAL instruments contribute to FAL cultures, or vice versa?
For practice:
Invest in cultures of feedback, accountability and learning.
Consider Ombudsmen & Audits to strengthen FAL instruments.

32. Risk Management and Innovation in Public Services
Theme 4:
Risky Business
Risk Management and Innovation in Public Services
Prof. Stephen Osborne &
Dr. Sophie Flemig
Centre for Service Excellence, University of Edinburgh Business School, Scotland

33. Methodology and Data
EU FP7 “Learning from Innovation in Public Service Environments” research project (LIPSE)
Document Analysis
Survey Analysis
800 contacts (200 per country, 657 responses in total
Case Study Analysis
4 case studies per country: 2 on mental health, 2 on sustainable public services
6-8 interviews per case study
Total of 16 case studies and 104 interviews

34. Findings
RQ1: What is the current range of approaches to risk in public service innovation?
Mostly ‘hard approaches’
Dominance of actuarial risk management, Negative associations with risk – must be avoided rather than managed effectively
RQ2: What are the key contingencies of PSO engagement with risk?
Size/maturity of an organisation
Level of supra-organisational regulation
Approach to innovation and risk of funders and politicians

35. RQ3: What are the current approaches to engaging key stakeholders in discussion?
Mostly absent from cases
No identified engagement with services users and their significant others
RQ4: How are these discussions translated subsequently into specific risk management and governance models?
Mostly by management and policy makers through formal mechanisms of regulation and internal checklists

36. Over-arching issues Separating risk and uncertainty
Clarifying the type of innovation (total, expansionary, evolutionary) and the locus of risk (service user, professional, organisational, community, political..)
Matching risk governance mode (technocratic, decisionistic, transparent) to the innovation and its locus

37. Implications for policy and practice
Risk is very poorly understand or governed in public service innovation
Change required from politicians and funders as well as service managers
Need to develop policy and organisational culture that understands risk as part of innovation
Innovation has real costs – financial, reputational, failure, unintended consequences: what benefits for what costs?
Fit the approach to risk to the innovation
Essential to engage stakeholders in dialogue
Importance of learning about and from risk and innovation

38. Adoption, diffusion and upscaling of ICT driven innovations
Theme 5:
Adoption, diffusion and upscaling of ICT driven innovations
Prof. Greta Nasi

39. Understanding what it takes to innovate
A vast and well-established literature exists with respect to the determinants and the adoption of social innovation in the public sector.
Evidences are exiguous also in distinguishing influential factors for specific types of adopters (i.e. pioneers, followers, late adopters, laggards).
ICT-driven innovations have failed substantially to be adopted in the past decade in EU and this calls for a greater understanding of what influences their adoption, diffusion and up scaling.
To identify the determinants and barriers that play a role in the adoption, diffusion and upscaling of ICT-driven innovation, in relation to the specific characteristics of pioneers, followers, late adopters and laggards.
For instance, such issues have been widely treated in the reports by various EU projects (e.g. LIPSE, TEPSIE, COCOPS, WILCO).
Upscaling, which is critical to generate longer-term effects of innovation and to achieve a “critical mass” of those innovations characterized by shallow patterns in their diffusion;

40. Main findings OUTER CONTEXT INNER CONTEXT
Upscaling is strongly driven by imitation of later adopters
Cultural inertia strongly hinder adoption, diffusion and upscaling of most innovations
Inter-institutional dynamics
(Mimicking – Competition)
Organizational factors
(Slack resources – Organizational size – Managerial leadership and political support –
Risk-averse culture)
Legal factors
(Legislative imposition – Law clarity – Law complexity)
Legal constraints can be a barrier to upscale innovation
Early adopters are usually involved in PPPs
Political factors
(Political cycle – Form of government – Autonomy)
Individual factors
(Individual perceptions – Managers’ personal characteristics – Professionalism of public personnel – Employees’ ICT readiness – Employees ICT acceptance)
Early adopters are set in richer and greater geographical contexts
Economic factors
(Economic wealth – Employment – Fiscal capacity – Budget constraints)
Late adoption is hindered by individual skepticism and scarce organizational readiness to innovation
Social factors
(Education and cultural wellbeing – Stakeholders’ attitude – Public opinion and pressures)
Technological factors
(Innovation’s complexity – Innovation’s security and reliability – Organizational ICT readiness)
ICT infrastructures (e.g. broadband) are necessary but not sufficient determinants of innovation
Demographic factors
(Population size – Population density)
Technological factors
(ICT infrastructures – Citizens’ ICT readiness)

41. Some implications
Co-creation is a fundamental element to steer towards the success of future social innovation initiatives in the public sector
Legal frameworks are in place, any further integration should be aimed at making rules simpler and clear
Government should emphasize further their vision (and communicate it internally and externally); promote employees’ bottom-up initiatives and create the mechanisms to embed their feedback into their programming capacity
Motivated public sector employees are key actors to pave the way forward of social innovation

42. Public sector innovation indicators
Theme 6:
Public sector innovation indicators
Prof. Rainer Kattel, Dr. Piret Tõnurist & Dr. Veiko Lember

43. http://prezi. com/p8c4uzxaubvz/

44. LIPSE: identifying drivers and barriers to social & public sector innovation