attachement 2: public

ESF project 4895: Meer werk maken van innovatie voor werkgelegenheid en arbeidsmarkt

ANALYSIS FICHE OF LITERATURE

TITLE OF LITERATURE: The Public Innovator’s Playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government

AUTHOR : William D. Eggers and Shalabh Kumar Singh – Deloitte Research

TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other): consultant

COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE):

ORIENTATION OF LITERATURE (check with X):

• innovation in general: • innovation by / within the public sector: X • innovation oriented towards citizens: • innovation oriented towards social and employment issues typically dealt with by ESF:

LESSONS LEARNT REGARDING:

A. How to define innovation e.g. in types

“Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things” (Theodore Levitt)

B. How to formulate an innovation strategy (in terms of scope, types of innovation, requirements) Five strategies that can encourage various sources of innovation, and help governments maximize their ability to generate innovative approaches: 1. Cultivate: engaging employees at all levels with diverse sets of skills to generate ideas

and see them through to final execution 2. Replicate: truly novel innovations are rare, it can be more effective to replicate and

adapt an existing innovation to a new context. 3. Partner: partnerships with government agencies, private industry, universities and

nonprofits let governments test new ideas quickly (bilateral relationships). 4. Network: utilize the innovation assets of a diverse base of organizations and individuals

to discover, develop and implement ideas in and out of organizational boundaries, better capture customer response to services and create learning organizations (myriad organizations).

5. Open source: in the private sector there is a shift away from knowledge monopolies to open source innovation models that encourage many people to collaborate voluntarily to

create solutions available for free (due to rapid globalization and falling transaction costs).

Governments have long employed the first three of these strategies, but they have often fallen short of expectations. The public sector is just beginning to tap the 4th and 5th strategy. There is a growing adoption of Web 2.0 technology in government – which uses interactive Web-based applications such as blogs and wiki’s to co-create content with the users.

C. How to organize innovation as a process in different stages?

Cycle with four phases:

- Idea generation and discovery - Idea selection - Idea implementation - Idea diffusion

D. How to define outputs of innovation e.g. in terms of idea, concept, prototype…?

E. How to make decisions regarding progress of an innovation?

F. What roles exist for different actors in the innovation process? What competences are required for these roles?

G. How to organize interaction with external stakeholders (open innovation)?

H. Specific tools that are explained (list briefly for each tool in what stage, by which role, why, how it is to be used).

a) Tool 1:



TITLE OF LITERATURE: Innovation in the public sector

AUTHOR : Geoff MULGAN and David ALBURY

TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other): academic






“New ideas that work”

To be more precise: “Successful innovation is the creation and implementation of new processes, products, services and methods of delivery which result in significant improvements in outcomes efficiency, effectiveness or quality”.

Types:

- Incremental: relatively minor changes to existing services or processes (e.g. using ICT to handle school finances)

- Radical: development of new services or fundamentally new ways of organizing or delivering a service

- Systemic or transformative: major innovations, often driven by the emergence of new technologies: transforming sectors, giving rise to new workforce structures, new types of organization, new relationship between organizations

- Systemic innovations, driven by changes in mindset or new policies: they entail constructing different relationships between users and services, new institutions and relationship between institutions, new funding regimes, major alterations in governance and responsibilities among the public, managers and professionals

Also relevant distinction:

- Top down innovation: driven through the delivery system by prescription - Bottom-up innovation: originating in an organization or network within the delivery

system

B. How to formulate an innovation strategy (in terms of scope, types of innovation, requirements)


Framework to help understand how to foster innovation:

Generating possibilities: how can we stimulate and support ideas for innovation?

Incubating and prototyping: what mechanisms are there for developing promising ideas and managing attendant risks?

Replicating and scaling up: how can we promote the rapid an d effective diffusion of successful innovation?

Analyzing and learning: how should we evaluate what works and what doesn’t to promote continuous learning and improvement?




For generating possibilities: can be stimulated by giving intensive attention to the views of users, frontline staff and middle managers, by ensuring a strong diversity of staff (different background and way of thinking), by constantly scanning the horizon and margins & learning from others.

Formal creativity techniques help organizations and individuals to suspend judgment, linear, rational thought and their proven knowledge to generate the unexpected. There’s a wide range of methods for doing this, including fiction, role playing, imagined worlds, systematic inventive thinking and the six hats techniques of Edward de Bono.

For incubating, prototyping and managing risks: the public sector requires high quality risk management and safe spaces in which to test and develop promising ideas within defined parameters.

G. How to organize interaction with external stakeholders (open innovation)? Networks of peers play a critical role in learning from and supporting continuous innovation: the formation of real time learning communities around specific innovations or clusters of innovations – combining on-line discussion groups, face-to-face conferences and meetings, and research.


a) Tool 1:



TITLE OF LITERATURE: Powering European Public Sector Innovation: Towards a new architecture

AUTHOR : Expert Group on Public Sector Innovation

TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other): academic (universities) and public sector experts (ministries)

COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE): European Commission DG Research and Innovation





Innovation in the public sector can be defined as “the process of generating new ideas and implementing them to create value for society, covering new or improved processes (internal focus) and services (external focus)”.

It takes a variety of forms, ranging from smarter procurement, mobilizing new forms of innovation financing, creating digital platforms and citizen-centric services as well as driving a new entrepreneurial culture among public managers.

Specific for the public sector, distinction is made between:

Innovation IN the public sector:

- Policies & initiatives with an internal focus on enhancing public sector efficiency (administrative and organizational innovation)

- Policies & initiatives with an external focus on improving services and outcomes for citizens and businesses (policy and service innovation, eg e-government)

Innovation THROUGH the public sector:

- Policies & initiatives with a focus on promoting innovation in other sectors (pro-actively driving innovation in other sectors)

B. How to formulate an innovation strategy (in terms of scope, types of innovation, requirements) The expert group formulates four designing principles which should be at the heart of the public sector and which are needed to overcome the barriers to innovation: - Co-design and co-creation of innovative solutions (with other member states, other

parts of government, businesses, the third sector and citizens) - Adopting new and collaborative service models (across public, private and non-

governmental actors, both within and across national borders) - Embracing creative disruption from technology (the pervasive use of social media,

mobility, bid data, cloud computing packaged in new digital government offerings) - Adopting an attitude of experimentation and entrepreneurship (government itself

needs to become bolder and more entrepreneurial)


The expert group recommends to organize a call for projects on digital innovation in Public Administration, defining the new technology paradigms and policy areas to be targeted.

1st stage: out of 100 applications (each containing a business plan), the 20 most innovative ones are selected, based on their potential for digital transformation and use of SMAC paradigms (= 4 criteria). Each project is awarded 100.000 euro to help develop outcomes and roadmaps.

2nd stage: roadmaps have to be translated into operational plans, management teams are appointed, delivery vendors are selected, clear milestones and measures of success are defined. Additional funding (from 5 to 10 million Euros) is available for those projects that demonstrate significant economic and societal impacts, originality, creativity and ability to replicate, and the potential to create new markets and growth opportunities.


In the public sector the value of innovation cannot be measured in economic terms, we distinguish four kinds of ‘value’ (Christian Bason – MindLab):

- Outcomes: better achievement of individual and societal outcomes, such as: increased health, learning, job creation, safety, sustainable environment

- Services: production of more meaningful, attractive and useful services as experienced by end users (citizens, businesses), including personalized tailor-made services to individual citizens and businesses

- Productivity: enhancing the internal efficiency of how public organizations are managed - Democracy: strengthening democratic citizen engagement and participation, ensuring

accountability, transparency and equality in society

See also point C: outcome of stage 1 is a ‘roadmap’. At the start of stage 2 an ‘operational plan’ has to be presented.



G. How to organize interaction with external stakeholders (open innovation)? Digital government: public services co-produced by public servants and their respective counterparts (citizens, businesses, other public organizations, NGO’s …). Challenge is to combine the legal obligation to provide equal service standards to all citizens with diverging needs of citizens. Use of e-feedback mechanisms, peer production (eg The London Data Store provides a London dashboard) New hybrid delivery models, shaped by hybrid organizations that combine elements of private, public and social/voluntary sectors, with an increased autonomy from government.


a) Tool 1:



TITLE OF LITERATURE: Capital ideas – How to generate innovation in the public sector

AUTHOR : Jitinder Kohli and Geoff Mulgan

TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other):







The authors formulate an advice to Congress & administration, with actions to be taken to ensure a constant flow of promising ideas into the federal government (could be considered as a ‘set of requirements’ needed to create a culture open to innovation):

1. Identify priority fields for innovation 2. Open up the space for ideas (widen the range of options, creating space for creative

and entrepreneurial solutions 3. Finance innovation (from very small grants for ideas from frontline staff to sstage-

gate investment models) 4. Fix incentives (recognize that new methods may be more effective and more efficient

than existing programs and initiatives 5. Change the culture (innovation has to be supported by the top, they must recognize

that it is acceptable that some ideas will fail) 6. Grow what works (put more focus on trying to scale up ideas that work, and close

down (even popular) programs or initiatives that have been less effective in the past)


The six-stage cycle of social innovation from inception to impact

1. Prompts, inspiration, and diagnoses Impetuses are often social problems (funding crises,, systemic failures, tragedies).These prompts must be accurately diagnosed in order to identify the root causes? New technologies or knowledge can also act as prompts

2. Proposals and ideas Once a problem or a new possibility is understood, social innovation set about generating ideas for solutions

3. Prototyping and pilots The testing stage: through controlled trials or just running an idea up the flagpole and seeing if anyone salutes. The refining and prototyping process is critical for social innovation. Ideas are battle-tested, supportive coalitions emerge, internecine conflicts get smoothed out and success benchmarks become formalized.

4. Sustaining The training wheels come off and the road to long term viability is paved. This means: finding revenue streams, writing supportive legislation, assembling the human and technical resources to put the air beneath the wings of innovation

5. Scaling and diffusion The idea takes off, reaping social economies of scale through expansion, replication and diffusion. There is no profit motive to drive social innovation across the globe like in the private sector. Social solutions often require government intervention and public-private partnerships to grow

6. Systemic change The end-game of social innovation. An idea, or many ideas in concert, become so entrenched that they give birth to new modes of thinking, new architectures, and ultimately entirely new frameworks.

D. How to define outputs of innovation e.g. in terms of idea, concept, prototype…? See above: intermediary output (after step 3): prototype, final output (after step 6): ‘new mode of thinking’, ‘new architecture’, ‘new framework’.



Innovation in companies is done by:

- research and product development department responsible for coming up with new

ideas or new products - hiring of innovation consultants - creating freedom for the employees: eg Google employees can devote 20% of their time

to work on projects of their choosing

Government:

- can deploy policy levers to try to promote innovation in the commercial world. However, public-sector organizations often discourage new thinking amongst its employees. New ideas almost always involve some risk and if something fails, political leaders and staff know they are likely to be asked why funds were wasted. Programs with little efficiency are often left alone, because it(s easier for a program manager to maintain the status quo than to devise better ways of running a program. Public-sector culture often rewards people for turning the gears of bureaucracy rather than improving the overall machinery (strong culture of ‘this Is the way things are done around here’).

- Despite the culture, there is a practical menu of proven approaches to stimulate innovation in any public organization:

o unleash the creative talents of agency staff: listen to your staff, encourage them to generate ideas to improve the way things are done

o set up dedicated teams responsible for promoting innovation. Teams looking at an issue are typically made up of a combination of those who are experts in the subject and those who bring a fresh perspective. About half usually come from outside government (ngo’s, business, and universities, and from front-line service delivery). Example of Prime Ministers’s Strategy Unit (UK). Key to success: those who work in the unit are insulated from the responding to daily events, and so they have the necessary time and resources to really think creatively. Other example: Mind Lab (DK): run jointly by 3 government departments, 15 employees some of which come from outside the public sector and act as a catalyst for innovative thinking.

o Divert a small proportion of your budget to harnessing innovation, US spends 2,7% of GDP on research & development activities. The funds go to a large extent to high-tech research at universities and to Defence, only a tiny proportion is spent on issues like education, housing, small-business policies. Example: the Education Department’s i3 Fund (US), which is looking to accelerate the development of the education sector. There 3 types of grants: Development grants aimed at finding a large number of promising ideas

at an early stage Validation grants focused on testing whether ideas have been successful Scale-up grants that fund the scaling-up of initiatives that have been

proven to succeed at the small scale. o Collaborate with outsiders (private and nonprofit sectors) to help solve

problems. There two ways of doing this: By working with successful commercial organizations that can help

government be more innovative

By harnessing the energy of those in civil society who want to help

address social issues but are rarely asked for their thoughts

o Look at issues from different perspectives to notice things you wouldn’t

otherwise (eg. Perspective of consumer, customer). Example: Kafka brigades (NL)



- Tool 1: Example: Crowdsourcing ideas with Innocentive. Innocentive is a commercial organization that works with companies to identify scientific problems that need a solution and posts them online, inviting scientists to work up solutions. There is an award available for solutions that are effective at addressing the problem.



TITLE OF LITERATURE: Ready or not? Taking innovation in the public sector seriously

AUTHOR : Geoff Mulgan

TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other): practitioner

COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE): NESTA





New ideas that work to create public value.

B. How to formulate an innovation strategy (in terms of scope, types of innovation, requirements) Public innovation cannot be simply planned or institutionalized but there are some factors that increase probability.

• Cultivate and scan the hinterland where ideas come from: local governments (who want public approval), business (seeking profit, stimulated by procurement), universities (entrepreneurial academics seeking recognition for new knowledge) , civil society (seeking growth and recognition, promoting innovations by example, campaigns)

• Recruit proven innovators • Design and test ideas • Provide markets for solutions and outcomes rather than inputs • Create protected spaces for radical ideas to evolve

In the public sector, the road from idea to reality does not follow the predictable path as in the private sector (basic research gives ideas, then prototypes , then products, although also with feed-back loops).

In the public sector there are two gatekeepers who control power and money.

1) Politicians: some can be open, some are natural innovators. They all look for new ideas to keep the edge over other politicians.

2) Bureaucracy (officials): most innovations are initiated by front line staff or middle management. All innovations must pass one of these two actors to become “public”. But they may come from the hinterland. Of note is that civil society complains that when they innovate, government just copies them without compensation. Why is innovation frustrated? Many innovations remain small scale and fragile. Why? 1) A public sector with a short time horizon is very resistant to innovation. Rather, four time

horizons should exist and have innovation efforts linked to them.

2) However, there are also good reasons to avoid BAD innovation: a. Control risk taking where people’s lives are involved b. Taking into account the desire for some stability for citizens (not to change

everything all the time for them)

Experimenting on the whole population all the time is NOT a good idea. Rather , testing, adapting at small scale should be done.

3) Bad reasons to avoid good innovation:

a. No one’s job: whereas a vast bureaucracy and budgets exist now for

performance management and audit, there is no such thing for innovation (as in the private sector)

b. Risk aversion (sometimes strengthened by ill-conceived performance management)

c. Too many rules: modern bureaucracies are designed to STOP capricious and unpredictable actions with rules. People attracted to lots of rules tend not to be so creative or at ease with risk.

d. Uncertain results: there are always periods when something new is underperforming what is already there because it is still on a learning curve. This is a problem anywhere but even more for the public sector as it is more visible and accountable.

e. High walls: organizational and professional boundaries impede the spreading of tacit knowledge which is even more important for innovation than formal knowledge. High impact innovations tend to cut across silos but this is more difficult if power and money are attached to silos.

f. Unsuitable structures: more radical innovation happens in oligopolic markets. A monopolist has no incentive to innovate and lots of small players usually get no further than incremental innovation. Oligopolies combine both competitive pressure and scale which comes with resources. Also, these larger players provide an incentive for venture capitalists to invest in smaller ones as they are likely to be bought by the majors. In the public sector, there is a monopolistic overseer (a national department) and then a multiplicity of small units none of which really has the capital or the capacity to see through more radical innovations at a larger scale.

Six elements of an innovative culture:

1) Leadership and culture: the top needs to reinforce the importance of innovation or no one will risk it. Once the ball gets rolling, an innovative culture can self-reinforce. Symbols also matter: eg in architecture / office lay-out.

2) Pulls and pushes: Push can come from political leadership, crisis, technology, financial necessity. But pull is even more important: needs that are not being met. Sometimes these emerge from civil society, sometimes from campaigners. Users have become more organised too, sometimes in alliance with radical professionals. They are key in keeping public services agile and creative.

3) Creativity and recombination: a. Use formal creativity techniques such as De Bono’s thinking hats b. Seeing things in new ways: look at positive deviants (who cope with issues better

than others) c. Try to twin different fields: eg airport designers with hospital managers d. Engage with the toughest, most extreme users or with the most serious problems to

force more lateral solutions e. Put an element of competitive pressure

4) Prototypes and pilots: tinkering, trial and error are necessary as few ideas emerge fully

formed. We need to try on a very small scale and then evolve. a. Pilots: a new model is specified in detail and then tested in practice (with control

groups). But care must be taken not to do this too soon as it may freeze a new model too soon when it should still be evolving.

b. Pathfinders (feasibility studies, market analysis, and other scoping studies to clear the way for innovation), learning by doing,… allow iteration rather than being rigid scientific experiments.

c. Some prototypes are adaptations of successes elsewhere. It is rare that a prototype is not adapted to local conditions.

5) Scaling and diffusion: a. Only a small proportion of ideas and pilots will deserve to be replicated. But diffusion

usually requires willing early adopters. Just decreeing and throwing around money is not sufficient. Even where strong networks are in place to promote diffusion, results have been disappointing. This is because different professions have different views of “success”. Also, innovations may threaten power structures. When diffusion does happen, it is usually because of effective champions within strong networks, doing a lot of handholding combined with financial inducement.

6) Sophisticated risk management: it is easier to take risks when a. There is a consensus things are not working b. When one is clear that one is experimenting with a range of options, rather than

pretending it will all succeed c. When users have choices (rather than have only one option forced) d. Where the innovation is managed by an entity removed from the state (eg an NGO,

business) so that if things go wrong, it can take the blame. Organising for innovation requires: 1) Pro-innovation governance: needs to ensure there is a flow of ideas ranging from high

risk/impact to low risk/impact across different time horizons 2) Teams and networks dedicated to organising innovation: people who scan the world and

other sectors, organize and advance innovation incl. mapping current pilots and assess them, design and incubate new innovations, acts as brokers/intermediaries linking ideas and needs. Ideally, they have a mix of skills, experience and contacts ( combining civil servants, social entrepreneurs, designers, practitioners). This may be easiest to organize as a separate unit, to enable crossing boundaries (eg situated at the level of the prime minister). They may be focused on problems, groups or places.

3) Processes that back innovation: look for emerging priorities and which promising innovations (incl. abroad) should be adopted/adapted.

4) Investment for innovation: innovation resources should be min 1-2% of overall budgets. More in fields of relative failure. Money can be directed at individual projects, or better, to teams with good track records and to intermediary organisations.

5) HR policies to bring out the best from innovators: have recruitment and development procedures that do not squeeze out creative people. Also do training for officials to become familiar with “innovation”.

6) Options for flexible experimentation: pilots, pathfinders, incubators, labs. 7) Support for the hinterland: funding to develop ideas via universities, civil society, local

authorities and also for “accelerators” that can bring new teams into existence. 8) Investment in diffusion: intense facilitation, databases, personal communication,

combined with a sense of shared mission within networks. 9) Markets for outcomes: funding that rewards outcomes rather than rules. 10) Spirit: have people with imaginative flair communicate the importance of innovation.





The best public innovators are good at empathy and listening to what it is people really want or need.



a) Tool 1:



TITLE OF LITERATURE: The challenge of sustaining innovation in the public sector

AUTHOR : D. Scott-Kemmis

TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other): consultant

COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE): Australian Government




A. How to define innovation e.g. in types 1) New vs improved services 2) Process: change in how something is produced 3) Administrative: new poilciy instruments 4) System: new organisations or patterns of cooperation and interaction 5) Conceptual: change in the outlook of actors by using new concepts 6) Radical: changes of belief systems

Or

1) Product versus service 2) Technological: new technologies 3) Process: improve quality and efficienct 4) Organizational: new forms of organizing, managing and working 5) Conceptual: new concepts, frameworks, paradigms 6) Institutional: transformation of relations between actors in society.

Is it not so clear how to label specific innovations. A caution is that different kinds of innovation may need different ways of promoting them.

Innovations should be situated in portfolio management: the majority of innovations are incremental. But at some point, this reaches diminishing returns and a more radical idea is required. On the other hand, major innovations often require a series of minor ones to make them work.

More radical innovation requires: a) formation of separate organisations. This is connected to the fact that a particular innovation path is linked to organizational strategy with building of particular processes, culture, resources and capabilities. Otherwise, innovation exists only at the level of rethoric or chance events. b) a higher level of collaboration with other organisations to bring complementary perspectives and capacities c) action learning (to deal with high levels of uncertainty) rather than project execution approaches.


Challenges for the public sector are:

1) Multiple objectives, some conflicting / vague. 2) Complex arrangements involving extensive consultation and coordination. 3) Large and more diverse (less focused) than private sector, designed to serve all citizens

rather than focus on a segment. 4) Pressure for uniformity. 5) Accountability focuses more on compliance (following rules and procedures within a

command and control framework) than learning and outcomes. 6) Lack of evaluation focused on learning. 7) Tradition of secrecy rather than openness, impeding learning. 8) Less tolerance for failure from both politicians and the public. 9) Lack of time and resources to do anything else than cope with events. 10) Attracts less entrepreneurial risk takers as a consequence.


The first stage is mainly conducting thought experiments and discussions to build confidence in an idea and develop the basic concept. The second (point 3) is incubation to further assess and develop the idea.

Throughout the process, more stakeholders have to be mobilized in between stages.






TITLE OF LITERATURE: Beyond light bulbs and pipelines

AUTHOR : J. Bessant et al


COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE): National School of Government UK





In the model below “product” also refers to “services! Paradigm changes are complex and impossible to predict. They change the context. This cannot easily be “managed”.

B. How to formulate an innovation strategy (in terms of scope, types of innovation,

requirements) We need innovation for: a) Persistent issues with no known pathway to solutions. b) Long term challenges which are becoming pressing. c) Increasing demands on public services. d) Recession, leading to significant tightening of public finances.

A major problem is that a narrow construction of innovation for efficiency will prevail. Rather, there needs to be slack in the system to create space for innovation. This needs to be paired with acceptance of failure. It also requires ensuring that the right kind of strategy and the right kind support model is in place for what is needed (see below) . Only strategic leadership can bring this about.

*Networks: assist in making sense of complex world, encourage sharing ideas, support problem-solving, cut down duplication or effort, provide access to peer expertise

**Innovation scouts and brokers: people who find and diffuse ideas from elsewhere. Sometimes commercial organisations like IDEO can be used for this. E.g. NHS UK innovation scout scheme.

*** Personal budgets: these put users in charge of commission their own services. To really function for innovation, then users or support organisations should start to hold these budgets on behalf of groups of members.

We can now combine these avenues for innovation into a broader framework where not only the type of innovation is present, but also the level of discretion. Some innovations will require a more centralized uniform approach and other do not need this.

A key conclusion and recommendation is that a unit that has the capacity to work with a range of innovation avenues is required. This unit should be staffed with persons coming from multiple disciplines, from within the public sector but also from intermediaries (e.g. like Mindlab).


Idea generation / identification – development – launch- diffusion

Many forget it is more than getting ideas. That may be the easiest.






a) Tool 1:



TITLE OF LITERATURE: The innovation deficit in public services

AUTHOR : J. Potts


COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE): Innovation 11, 2009







Experimentation is necessary when 1) no one best way to achieve a goal efficiently b) can be known, c) rationally chosen and implemented.

In the public sector the criterion of efficiency prevails -in terms of management and provision of public assets and services.

However, such a criterion is meaningful only towards assets and services that already exist. It excludes innovation or elimination of what exists.

To render it meaningful, we should talk about “bad’ waste as derived from information imperfection, slack, institutional friction, transaction costs, market/government failure, rationality failure,… The solution here is to remove imperfections and frictions where some groups can benefit more, while others do not benefit less (pareto efficiency). But this is always accompanied by rent seeking to increase benefits for some groups, at the expense of others, that comes by degrees of corruption and exploitation of power.

This is different from “good” waste as the cost of experimentation and learning. Some special kinds of bad waste impede having good waste, notably systematic risk aversion which in essence is distrust of imagination with public resources. It is more politely known as transparency and accountability. It leads to the loss of ability to change and grow through imaginative experimentation to meet new threats and opportunities. The result is a fragile system.

Experimentation is not random. It is guided by theory and principles (about what could work) and protocols (how to learn).

It is human to overestimate the cost of good waste, while underestimating the potential gains. It is called “loss aversion” (behavioral economics) which functions already for known gains and losses but is even worse for uncertain ones.

Absolute accountability crowds out imagination and experimentation. We need to move to accountability for the process. This is also compatible with transparency.

Historically, politics evolved in a world of relatively slow change. But now, the growth of knowledge through the market system is driving the pace of change in human systems. Policy systems now must run to keep up.






a) Tool 1:



TITLE OF LITERATURE: Innovation in policy

AUTHOR : J. Christiansen

TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other): practitioner

COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE): Mindlab / Nesta


• innovation in general: • innovation by / within the public sector: X • innovation oriented towards citizens: X • innovation oriented towards social and employment issues typically dealt with by ESF:




Most pressing challenges for government defy the usual bureaucratic problem solving (problem definition, administration, resolution). They cut across policy areas and are complex:

1) It is difficult to articulate causal relations/mechanisms as causes are multi-dimensional and interconnected.

2) Issues are highly personalized / contingent on lifestyle, circumstances or dispositions of individuals

3) Issues are constantly evolving , requiring open ended intervention

It is essential to build a) resilience for innovation (enduring power to transform, renew, recover) and b) anticipate in terms of imagining the world in possibilities and to push current perceptions of what can be done.

This also requires empathy and attention to people’s daily lives and what matters to them. Government should not have as ambition to deliver services but to achieve outcomes, informed by local insight and context.

We need to change from launching rigid, top-down programmes to establishing and facilitating networks of the state, civil society, citizens, private and social enterprise, as the primary capacity to solve problems, share resources and learn (networked governance).

It implies moving away from centralized control and regulation, with the state as “deliverer” and citizens as “recipients”, towards decentralized, non-regulatory approaches. “Control” is not about controlling “output” anymore but about authorizing productive, collaborative efforts to create useful knowledge.

This also entails moving away from developing and launching “silver bullet solutions” as end-points -that can only be possible because social reality is squeezed into a project and ensuing service delivery. In complex problems having a focus on outcomes is part of continuously addressing and working on issues with those for whom the outcome is intended. In this sense the “service” is more a matter of continuous facilitation rather than “implementing a solution” .

Diffusion and scaling are less about implementing ‘best practice’ and more about building capacity to facilitate local learning and experimentation around and of useful ideas and concepts, to create the intended outcomes.

Measurement and evaluation can then not be about measuring a definitive “impact” but about learning to shape and adapt practice (this can also be by using RCTs).

Experimentation is not the same as running an intial pilot prior to launching full scale. The expectation for the pilot is success. In experimentation, success is not expected. But commitment of resources is also small. The idea is low cost learning from failure as a way to manage and contain risk within an authorized space.

Beta versions are key here. These expect to be imperfect, working hypothesis. It encourages challenge and critique beyond static consultation into engagement, iteration and co-production.

Rather than sanctioning and validating decisions based on authorized knowledge, the role of the state shifts to facilitation of the generation of knowledge and taking of effective action. An “intervention” then consist of creating a space, an “authorising environment” for various actors to work in.

The state does have a role here to ensure openness and veracity of information, ensure impartiality and acknowledge dispute.

The key question becomes: do innovation projects , or are they failed by wider networks of support and validation. Creative methods building on ethnography, co-design, social media,… add legitimacy. This is not necessarily at odds with formal evaluation and evidence as it provides new hypotheses and questions for research.

Where apply this?

Greater chances if:

1) There is currently little on offer

2) What is on offer is not working 3) Little evidence of what works 4) System needs to shift to a more preventative approach 5) There are substantial financial cuts or other shifts in context, forcing to be more imaginative

in responding to demand







a) Tool 1:

attachement 2: public

Government & Nonprofit