Empowering Change Annex 1

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
Assessing Policies, Programs and Other Initiatives to

Promote Innovation in the Public Sector: International
Case Studies
Contents
Summary
Framework for Assessing Policies, Programs and
Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector
B.
C.
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

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 organisations past strategies ie the
challenges it has addressed;

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.

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 Ministers 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.

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 isnt
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.

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 project 1 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;
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. 321.

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. 3 p 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.18 4
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

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.
This could be considered an administrative innovation but includes changes in frames,

values and meanings. Publin report D15 Ren Kemp and Rifka Weehuizen: Policy
learning, what does it and how can we study it?
10

~ 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
11

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 stages 6 . 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.
Figure1:BringinganInnovationfromIdeatoApplication
Subprocesses:
3.
1.
Imagining
the Dual
(TechnoMarket)
Insight
2.
Mobilizing
Interest and
Endorsement
Incubating
to Define
Commercializability
BuildingtheValueofanInnovation
5.
9.
7.
Demonstrating
Sustaining
Promoting
Contextually
Full Implementation
Adoption
in
8.
Products
4.
Mobilizing
6.
and
Mobilizing
CompleMobilizing
Resources Processes
mentary
Market
for DemonAssets for
Constituents
stration
Delivery
Bridges:SatisfyingandMobilizingStakeholdersatEachStage
Source: V.J. Jolly (1997) Mind to Market. Harvard Business Press
Crawford,C.B.(2001)LeadershipandInnovation:ChampionsandTechiesasAgentsofInfluence.Association
ofLeadershipEducators.;Shane,S.,Venkataraman,SlandMacMillan,I.(1995)CulturalDifferencesin
InnovationChampioningStrategies.JournalofManagement.21(5):931952.;Howell,J.etal(2005)Champions
ofproductInnovations:defining,developingandvalidatingameasureofchampionbehaviour.Journalof
BusinessVenturing20:641661.
12

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
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
Paradigm
Risk
Management capability
Collaboration
Communication
Radical
Uncertainty
&Complexity
Major
Incremental
Processes
Services
Policies
External Impacts & Linkages

Source: Author
13

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.
Processes
Innovation
Enabling Routines/
Processes
Systems
Scanning
Recognising technical and
Forecasting
economic clues
Assessing
Business intelligence
[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
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
Capabilities [Resources , Positions]

Cognitive
Skills
Frameworks
Analysis
Relevant
Communication
Technologies
Persuasion
Market, social &
Leadership
industry dynamics
Tolerating ambiguity
Technology
& uncertainty
evolution
Cultural awareness
Competitor Analysis
Culture change
Strategic analysis
Planning
Business 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
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
14

lessons into routines
Developing the
Organisation through
embedding effective
routines in structures,
processes and behaviours.
Communication
Failure tolerance
Team building
Training
Delegation
TQM
Empowerment
Codification
Motivation
Experiment
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;
IMProve for Innovation Management Professionals. The IMProve Approach The IMProve
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.
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
Processes
& Culture
Capabilities
Organisational
Innovativeness
Source: Author
Strategy & Resources
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 organisations
15

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. KPMGs surveybased 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
organisations innovation and learning system - as shown below. From this
perspective an organisations procedures, promotion criteria, strategic plans etc
should be designed to address both the short term performance requirements
and the task of continual renovation.
16

Figure 4: Building an Innovation System in the Organisation
ClarifyDrivers&
ProvideIncentives
Developing
innovativeideas
fromstaff,
suppliers,
customers,other
organisations
Implement
innovations:
leadership,risk
management,
addressbarriers
Scaleupfor
wider
implementation
Learning:aboutgeneratingideas,incentivesthatwork,project
management,leadership,scalingup
Buildingconfidence,networks,linkagesoutsidetheorganisation,
reputation,neworganisationalarrangements
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 Innovation 7
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 organisations innovation systems; future
orientation
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).
17

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 contradictions 8 :
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.
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
18

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)
19

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 from 9 :
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
This list is largely based on Ren Kemp & Rifka Weehuizen Policy learning, what does it
mean and how can we study it? Publin report D15
20

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
Learning
Diffusion
On-line resources support tools

Development of case studies,
resources
Position guidelines and selection

criteria
Organisational performance and

audit guidelines
Organisation level innovation

strategies
Organisation level innovation
performance assessment
Central fund for supporting trials
Central organisation for capturing

and diffusing experience
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
Individual and group incentives
Innovation awards and

competitions
Innovation units at the Central
level
Innovation units at the
Departmental level
Tables 7 and 8 provide some additional checklists for agency and department
level innovation development initiatives.
21

Figure 5: Overall Public Service Strategy for Innovation Performance- Types of Initiative
Support Resources
External
Establishment of
External Innovation
Support Unit
Establishment of
External Training
Facility/Program
Central
Direct Initiatives
Central
Development of On-Line
Support Resources
Central Innovation Unit to

Lead Specific Projects
Central Level Training

Programs
Central Fund for Supporting

Trials
Development of Case
Studies & Support
resources
Central Unit for Capturing &

Disseminating Learning
Research on PS
Innovation Aust. &
International
Surveys of PS
Innovation &
development of metrics
Innovation Awards &

Competitions
Department/Agency
Organisation Level Innovation
Unit to Lead or Support
Projects
Embedding in Performance
Assessment
Central
Requirement for Organisation
Level Innovation Strategies
Organisational Performance &

Assessment Guidelines
Development of Frameworks
& Metrics for Innovation
Performance Assessment
Benchmarking- intra & International
Department/Agency
Department Level Training

Programs
Organisation Level Innovation

Performance Assessment
Individual & Group Incentives
Position Guidelines and

Selection Criteria
22

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
a central mechanism. Such sites may also facilitate
networking.
Build networks to promote diffusion
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
available on-line.
On-line resources
support tools
Development of case
studies, resources
Central fund for
supporting trials
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 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 Ministers 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 progress 10 .
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.
10
www.betteregulation.gov.uk/
23

Organisational
performance and
audit guidelines
The development of performance audit and program

evaluation frameworks which include an assessment of
innovation management processes and outcomes.
Research on PS
innovation
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.
Surveys of PS
innovation- with
metrics
Organisation level
innovation strategies
Organisation level
innovation
performance
assessment
Innovation units at
the Departmental
level
Funds for pilots at the

Departmental level
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.
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.
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 NESTAs Lab is an initiative to develop
and test new policies, particularly social policy.
11
See for example the discussion in Mulgan (2007) p21-2
24
Innovation units
outside government
Benchmarking - intra
and inter-national
Leadership that
supports innovation
Position guidelines
and selection criteria
Individual and group
incentives
Early evaluations can be highly ambiguous it is important

to be realistic about the duration necessary for impacts to
be clear 11 .
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
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).
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 Administrations Smart Tape Centre
diffuses best practice standards.
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 Ministers 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 boundaries 12 .
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 benefits 13 .
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
25

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
User pull
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 arms 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?
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
organisations 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
26

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) 213232, 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
27

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) 213232, p.229 14
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. 230242.
28

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 Ministers
Strategy Unit in the Cabinet Office also has a responsibility to promote
innovation in policy development 16 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 Treasurys 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.
29

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.
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
30

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 Defences 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

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 childrens centres and better internet
access to information on care services.
Source: UK, Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central
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 report 17 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
departments 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
change 18 .
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
18
31

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 organisation 19 .
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 thinking 20 . The LAB,
which is a series of projects rather than a physical space, has three components:
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 decisionmakers. 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.
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/
21
http://www.nesta.org.uk/the-lab-innovating-public-services/
32

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
Justices Community
Justice Program.
3 The Cabinet Offices
Show Us a Better Way
competition
4 The Environment
Agencys Flood Warning
direct system.
5 The Higher Education
Funding Council for the
Higher Education
Innovation Fund
(HEIF).
6 The Prison Services
procurement of prison
mattresses.
7 The Home Offices
IRIS border control
system
8 The department for
Work and Pensions
Lean Program.
9 The Environment
Agencys Innovation 4
Efficiency team.
10 The Pension
Services Pension
Transformation
Program.
11 BERRs Business
Support Simplification
scheme.
Luton PCTs 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
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
Services 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 Agencys 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.
33

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 .
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 NESTA 23 . 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 departments 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.
22
LSE Public Policy Group (2008) Innovation in Government Organisations, Public Sector
Agencies and Public Service NGOs. Innovation Index Working Paper NESTA.
23
Su Maddock (2007) Creating the Conditions for Public Innovation. National School of
Government; The Young Foundation and NESTA. p57
34

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.
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 governments 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 reviewed 25
recommended that government should respond to three particular challenges:
engaging in partnership with user-led online communities;
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
35

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 introduced 26 . Both the NHS and
the National Library for Health work with user-led online communities to
disseminate information from the NHS 27 .
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 2009 28 .
The report identifies six where action is needed to improve the governments 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 BBCs model for innovation in its backstage service which encourages
people to innovate by re-using the BBCs 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.
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
28
http://poit.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/poit/2009/02/summary-final/
36

4.
To promote innovation across the public sector DBIS has selected five focal
areas 29 :
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.
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 agenda 30 , 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
UK 31 :
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
29
DIUS, March, 2008

SeeUKDesignCouncil.PublicSectorInnovationWorkshop.December2007.
31
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) 109125
30
37

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.
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 innovation 32 . The reviews 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, small-
Most innovations we examined used some form

of piloting and testing. Those that did not
32
In 2008 the Cabinet Office launched a new standard, Customer Service Excellence, to
support customer focused service delivery.
38

scale testing, and quicker decisionmaking processes.
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

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 government 33 . 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:
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.
39

Factors considered to help and hinder innovation

The report suggests that the case studies of recent innovations show 34 :
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;
34
UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government.

National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15
40

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.
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 level 35 :
Leaders have a good understanding about, and communicate, what
innovation means in relation to the organisations 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.
35
UK,.Comptroller and Auditor General (2009) Innovation Across Central Government.

National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9. p.15
41

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
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 projects life
Overall perspective on progress from the 2009 Report 36
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 prioritiesDIUS 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
36

Government. National Audit Office, HC 12 Session 2008-9.
42

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
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.
43

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
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
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)
44

B.2 Canada
1.
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
users 38 :
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 Innovators Guide to Innovating in Organisations.
www.innovation.cc/books/guide_innovate_organization.pdf
45

within departments 39 . 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 Board 40 .
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.6 41
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.tbssct.gc.ca/presentations/rmadpr/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
46

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.29 42
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 IBM 43 . 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
42

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 Administracin Pblica, 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
47

Regulatory Innovation provides a window on the developments in
regulatory practice and the scholarly analysis of those innovations 46 . 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. CCAFs 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 paper 47 ,
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
47
48

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 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 Sector 51 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
Australias 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 participation 52 . 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 sectors 53 .
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 innovations 54 .
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 Administracin Pblica, Lisboa, Portugal, 8-11 Oct. 2002
51
49

The Canadian federal governments 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 reduction 55 . 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.9 56
55

56
50
3.
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 common 57 .
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 services 58 . 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 driver 59 . 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

57
58
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.
51

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
Canadas SchoolNet is another example of technological innovation in
government. Currently, SchoolNets 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.
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
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
52

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
67
Wilkins J. (2002) Learning from Canadian Innovations in Alternative Service Delivery.

CAPAM Biennial Conference. 2002.
53

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 increasing 70 .
6.
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
54

to have been the focus on initiatives to promote innovation. A recent review of
the development of service improvement in Canada concludes 71 :
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 sector 72
7.
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

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
Institute of Public Administration of Canada..p18.
55

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
as 75 :
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

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.
56

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, Queens 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)
57

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 Administracin Pblica, 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
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.
58
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.psagencyagencefp.gc.ca/hrrh/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/spsmrgsp/spsmrgsp_e.asp.
Canada. Treasury Board. (2005). Management resources and results

structure policy. Retrieved June 24, 207. from
http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/mrrsppsgrr/mrrsppsgrr01_e.as
p#_Toc90452626.
Canada. Treasury Board. (2006). Valuing the evaluation function: Problems

and perspectives. Retrieved June 24, 2007. from
http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/eval/ppt/jun06001/vefvfe_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.tbssct.gc.ca/presentations/rmadpr/poli/page01_e.asp
Doern, G. B. (1971). Recent Changes in the Philosophy of PolicyMaking in

Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science
politique, 4(2), 243264.
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and

Present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 2734.
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.
59
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
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
Sutherland, S. L. (2007). The unaccountable Federal Accountability Act:

Goodbye to responsible government? [Electronic Version]. Revue
Gouvernance, 3, from http://www.revuegouvernance.ca/articleen.
60
B.3 Singapore
1.
The current overarching policy framework for public sector development is PS21.
The PS21 Office is within the Prime Ministers Department 78 . 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
61
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 managers 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 Singapores 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 Ministers 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
62

provides funding and test beds for innovations that need to be trial tested to
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.
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 policy 79 .
3.
Innovation
As noted above, it is evident that ICT is a major enabler in many of the projects
supported under the TEC.
The governments 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.
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
63

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
64

----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 Faade 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
65

----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 Inmates 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.
Apart from the evidence provided by the TEC program no systematic evidence of
the improvements in innovation-related performance is available.
7.
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
66

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://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 Governments 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
67

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.
68
B.4 Netherlands
1.
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 vouchers 83 .
The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and by the Ministry of
Finance have the primary responsibility for innovation in the Dutch public
sector 84 . 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 Centre 86
(ELO) and the 21st Century Government Network (ON21) organises collective
purchasing of IT equipment and services for the public sector 87 . 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.
82
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
83
69

2.
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.
www.benchmarkenindepubliekesector.nl (in Dutch)
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
organisations 88 .
3.
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 available 90 .
4.
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 sectors 91 .
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) 213232
91
See for example: Bossink, B. (2002) A Dutch Public-Private Strategy for Innovation in
Sustainable Construction. Construction Management and Economics 20: 633-642
70
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 .
92
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 Norberg-
71

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
www.ink.nl
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 . i n 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
72

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.
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
73

innovation agenda, if public administration is able to connect its own, internal
managerial innovation agenda to the broader societal agenda. 95
7.
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 emperors new clothes? Information
Polity 12 (2007) 103107
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. 230243.
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,publicinnovationandinformationandcommunicationtechnologies:The
emperorsnewclothes.InformationPolity12:103107.
74

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 Lgreid: 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
Jane Jrvalt, Tiina-Randma Liiv, Klli 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
75

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 Lgreid: 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?
Ricardo Corra 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
76

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
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
77

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
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
78
79

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 7787.
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): 465487.
Audit Commission (2007) Seeing the Light. London: Audit Commission.
80

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) Dont 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
81

Borins, S., Encouraging Innovation in the Public Sector, Journal of Intellectual
Capital 2(3) (2001), 310319.
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.
82

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. Holmn 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 Lrgreid, 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, ditions 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.
83

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 Sevn, 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 Americas 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.
84

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 Jaworskis 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.
85

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.
86

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 Innovators 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.
87

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.
Grnhaug, 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.
88

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 UKs
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
89

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):
179193.
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.
90

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 Rste 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.
91

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
92

environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429451.
Lundvall, B.-., 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- (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.
93

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 Sevn, 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.
94

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 Ministers 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.
95

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
96

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 Hitchhikers 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
97

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). Marketings 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.
98

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) Brazils 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
99

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.
Suriach, Jordi, Moreno, Rosina and Vay, Esther (2007) Knowledge
Externalities, Innovation Clusters and Regional Development. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
100

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 OReilly, 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.
101

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.
102

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.

Empowering Change Annex 1

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Empowering Change Annex 1

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Management Advisory Committee Report 9 - ANNEX 1

Assessing Policies, Programs and Other

The Challenge of Sustaining Innovation in the

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Assessing Policies, Programs and Other Initiatives to

Framework for Assessing Policies, Programs and

Initiatives to Promote Innovation in the Public Sector

Prior Research on Public Sector Innovation

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

What is Innovation in the Public Sector?

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

While the terminology is far from consistent, systems innovation and

Moore, M & Hartley, J. (2008) Innovations in Governance. Public Management Review

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Some managers have considerable

Complex system of organisations with

This could be considered an administrative innovation but includes changes in frames,

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Most firms are parts of one or more

Public sector is typically dependent on

Companies have considerable

Despite large resources, parts of the

Short-term in many sectors, though

Managing Innovation: Processes Competencies and Context

While remaining mindful of the limitations of transferring models from the

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

External Impacts & Linkages

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Processes and Capabilities

Organisations must develop the capabilities for innovation. Those capabilities

Acquiring new knowledge

Capabilities [Resources , Positions]

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Framework 4: Linking Strategy to Building Capabilities and Processes

Figure 3: Foundations of Organisational Innovativeness

Strategy & Resources

If an organisation changes direction in a major way, eg from policy to service

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Building an Innovation System

As change become more frequent, and the knowledge intensity of change

Don Scott-Kemmis & Associates

Promoting Innovation in the Public Sector: Case Studies

Summarising the discussion in this section, we can identify eight key