Download presentation
Published byAmberlynn West Modified over 9 years ago
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
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.