1

Creative abrasion as grounds for innovation in a complex welfare service system

Harri Jalonen * Department of Business Information Management Turku University of Applied Sciences Vesikoskenkatu 1, 32200 Loimaa, Finland E-mail: harri.jalonen@turkuamk.fi

Structured Abstract Purpose – This paper explores the potential for innovation in a welfare service system. The focus of the paper is on the initiation stage of the innovation process. The aim of the paper is to open up the welfare service system’s internal dynamics, which enables the system’s ability to see things “in a new light”. ‘Welfare service system’ refers to a complex set of interactions and adjustments that have evolved over time. It consists of various stakeholders from the public, private and third sector. Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical framework of this paper is based on complexity science. Instead of treating complexity as a problem for a welfare service system per se, complexity here serves as a ‘handle concept’ that is used to discover new perspectives on innovation within the context of welfare services. The empirical data was collected by conducting semi-structured interviews and workshops with leading office holders from the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki (n=28) and executive managers of social services producer organizations (n=14) in the Helsinki region. Originality/value – Complexity thinking gained popularity in the social sciences during the 1990s. However, there has been little empirical research using the findings of complexity theories to explore the potential for innovation in a welfare services context. This paper presents a theoretically founded basis for promoting innovation in welfare services, combining empirical findings with the public innovation research and previous research in the field of complexity theories. In this sense, it can be argued that this paper opens up the potential for the movement of thought in innovation research, particularly in the welfare services context. Practical implications – This paper reflects the empirical findings in the literature on innovation and complexity, and thereby may give new insights for practitioners to interpret their own innovation environment. It is suggested that managing innovation in complex welfare service systems requires the ability to articulate emerging themes, to stand ‘co-opetition’ states of diversity, to acknowledge the boundaries of rational thinking and resist the urge to rapidly draw conclusions, and reflect on one´s own behaviour and its consequences. As a result, this paper presents a framework called ‘creative abrasion’. Creative abrasion is a complex process that is simultaneously an emergent whole based on local interactions between different actors and a global structure that directs those interaction processes.

2

Keywords – Innovation management, welfare service system, complexity science, complexity theory, complex responsive process 1 Introduction In welfare services, particularly in public health and social services, innovations are associated with improvements in productivity and responsiveness. The need for improvements is primarily rationalized by the challenges of population ageing and increasing costs of welfare services. In Finland, for example, it is estimated that the share of over-65-year-olds will soar from 17 per cent (2010) to 27 per cent by the year 2040 (www.stat.fi). Due to the distortion in the age structure, the dependency ratios are rapidly weakening all over Europe (Giannakouris 2008). At the same time, there is a growing demand for more individual and customer-oriented services. It is argued, for example, that citizens now expect to be directly involved in designing various government programmes and services (United Nations 2008). A rather optimistic assumption is that the challenges in welfare services can only be met if service providers are able to develop and adopt innovative working methods and practices. In addition to individual welfare service providers’ ability to innovate, the present focus is more often on system-level questions. A system level perspective is associated with a tendency where a growing number of welfare services are provided by co-operation between the public and private sectors; public and private organizations co-operate in order to match services and solve policy problems (Agranoff 2007). The underlying idea is that co-operation creates mutual added value (Klijn & Teisman 2003). It is mixed-sector co-operation that is seen to provide fertile ground for innovations as well. In this paper, the challenges of innovation in a welfare service system are addressed from the complexity science, which implies that the interaction processes within the system and between the system and its surrounding are seen as fundamental elements for innovation. This paper is structured as follows. In the second section, the aim and the research design is presented. In the third section, the rationale for defining the welfare service system as a complex system is explained. The fourth section discusses the concepts of complexity science – the theoretical framework of this paper. The fifth section presents and discusses the findings of empirical research. Finally, conclusions are drawn.

2 Aim and research design This paper explores the potential for innovation in a welfare service system. The focus of the paper is on the initiation stage (i.e. the conception of new ideas and proposals) of the innovation process. The aim of the paper is to open up the welfare service system’s internal dynamics, which enables the system’s ability to innovate – i.e. seeing things “in a

3

new light”. In this paper asks: what enabling elements are necessary in creating new ideas in a complex welfare system? A system-level perspective for innovation can be argued by the fact that innovations in welfare services necessitate changes in the relationships between different stakeholders (e.g. Hartley 2006). Innovation takes place in a network of actors because organisations rarely have the resources to innovate alone (e.g. Bessant 2008; Ortt & Smits 2006). In addition, innovation is affected by the infrastructural and institutional arrangements (Ortt & Smits 2006). The methodology of this paper can be characterized as qualitative in nature, an approach that is common in studies whose purpose is to gain an understanding of how practitioners “define the situation” (Marshall & Rossman 2006). A qualitative case study was chosen because it is flexible and enables in-depth exploration of perceptions from a limited number of enlightened individuals. The empirical part of the paper consists of studying the system-level innovation in the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki in Finland. The empirical data was collected within a two-year research project called “Managing the value network of welfare services”. The empirical data was collected in the spring and autumn of 2010 by conducting semi-structured interviews and workshops with leading office holders from the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki (n=28) and executive managers of social services producer organizations (n=14) in the Helsinki region. The City of Helsinki is a large municipal organization with around 40,000 employees and an annual expenditure of around 3,000 million Euros. Most of the income is derived from tax revenues. The Social Services Department has five responsibilities: Child Day Care Services, Services for Families with Children, Adult Services, Elderly Services, and Management and Development Centre. The term ‘value network’ is used by the city officials. Currently, the network of social services is highly fragmented and difficult to perceive. Therefore, the value network has been launched as a strategic concept for describing the complex operating environment.

3 Welfare service system as a complex system ‘Welfare service system’ refers to a complex set of interactions and adjustments that have evolved over time. A welfare service system consists of various stakeholders from the public, private and third-party sectors. The system includes not just different organizations but enacted social relations. Furthermore, the system’s operations are affected by political, administrative, economic and legal factors.

4

In this paper, the value network of the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki serves as an empirical example of a complex welfare service system. The value network consists of hundreds of organizations from the public, private and third-party sectors. In 2010, the Social Services Department had its own service production in 750 different units. In addition, it purchased services from over 500 service providers from the private and third-party sectors. The department had about 12,000 employees, and the total expenditure was 1,200 million Euros. The amount of outsourced services has steadily increased and the department is currently buying services valued at over 220 million Euros. Solely in light of the numbers, the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki can be regarded as a challenging environment for innovations. In this paper, the value network of the Social Services Department is defined as ‘complex’ due to three main factors. Firstly, it is composed of hundreds of subsystems (i.e. public, private and third-party sector organisations) which are connected to each other in order to provide services to their customers. In addition, many of those organisations belong to other networks. Even though the degree of connectivity varies from weak to strong, it is these interrelationships between diverse actors that produce the complex behaviour. Secondly, the value network constantly deals with issues that can be characterized as “wicked” in the sense that conflicting interpretations are more often the rule than the exception (cf. Raisio 2010). A good example of a wicked problem in social and health care is the goal of increasing equality in the service delivery while simultaneously trying to reduce the costs of the care. The wicked problem is subjective in the sense that everyone can have an equally ‘right’ opinion about it. Therefore, the process of tackling a wicked problem is always political – it is an argument and a deliberation (Raisio 2010). Thirdly, the services provided by the value network range from ‘cradle to the grave’. Customers include, for example, mothers using the maternity clinical services, drug addicts, student families who need a temporary maintenance grant, outpatients who suffer from mental disabilities, families who are searching for a day-care centre that provides special pedagogics for their childrena, independent elderly people using catering services, and immigrants who have lost their trust in public servants. It can be supposed that the diversity of customers and services challenges the coordination of activities in the interfaces between different actors in the value network. This is presumed to influence the innovation performance in the value net of the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki.

4 Complexity as a theoretical framework In spoken language, the word ‘complex’ means a situation that is difficult to handle. In this sense, a system is complex when individuals and organizations cannot predict the outcomes the system produces. In complexity thinking, however, complexity is seen differently. Scholars in the domain describe complexity as a basic property of the social system (e.g. Stacey 2010; Hazy et al. 2007; Mitleton-Kelly 2003). They argue that

5

complexity is neither ‘bad’ nor ‘good’; it just helps to understand the nature of the world – and the systems – we live in. Despite the small differences in nuances, it is common for all complexity thinking to regard the unpredictability of the system as a result of local interactions in which the agents exchange information with one another. This local interaction between the agents creates emergent behaviour at the system level. It is that “things just happen” without a clear origin or cause (Mitleton-Kelly 2003). In addition to interaction within the system, the actors also interact with actors outside of the system. Due to the interaction within the system and between the system and its environment, the system is constantly pushed towards a state of ‘far-from-equilibrium’. In a state of ‘far-from-equilibrium’, entropy exists, which, in case of a social system, results when the parts of the system exchange information. According to Prigogine & Stengers (1985), it is this entropy that may “become the progenitor of order” (Mitleton-Kelly 2003). Prigogine & Stengers (1985) state that “under non-equilibrium conditions, at least, entropy may produce, rather than degrade, order (and) organization ... If this is so, then entropy, too, loses its either/or character. While certain systems run down, other systems simultaneously evolve and grow more coherent.” In the words of Mitleton-Kelly (2003), social systems “move away from equilibrium or from established patterns of work and behaviour, new ways of working are created and new forms of organisation may emerge”. The creation of new order in social systems is taken to mean the ability to innovate (Mitleton-Kelly 2006). Based on the above, this paper calls into question the notion of innovation as an organizational activity that can be designed and managed like any other activity. Instead of seeing innovation as a ‘rational’ process that consists of “consecutive acts of creation and adoption of novelty, intended to lead to value creation both for the creating and the adopting organizations” (Aasen 2009), this paper proposes that the mystery of innovation hides in complex intra- and inter-organizational interaction processes within the welfare service system. It is suggested that the interaction processes have an unknown potential that can be translated into a resource for improving a welfare service system’s innovation performance. However, instead of claiming that innovations “simply happen” or “bubble up”, this paper proposes that innovation is more appropriately constructed rather than the result of a mysterious emergence as such (cf. Hazy et al 2007; Goldstein 2003). In other words, innovation requires constant support. The success of the innovation much depends on the attention the actors give to the innovation process. Nevertheless, what is important is the nature of the support and attention. This paper argues that traditional management activities such as goal setting, planning, monitoring and controlling are insufficient in innovation processes that are taking place in complex systems. A rational approach to innovation management is flawed because, in the system context, there is no single actor that can operate alone as a leader or who has all the necessary knowledge and resources for tackling the problems at hand. Adapting Mitleton-Kelly (2003), this paper supposes that pro-innovation conditions exist in a complex welfare service system when a new order – i.e. innovation – is not ‘designed’ in too much detail, but when there are enabling

6

infrastructures that allow the new patterns of interaction, and, hence, new ways of seeing, to emerge. Before considering the pro-innovation conditions in detail, there will be a brief summary of those elements of complexity science that are most important in light of this paper. This summary is based especially on work by Mitleton-Kelly (2003), Aasen (2009), and Stacey (2010).

Self-organization and emergence – Self-organization is a more or less spontaneous process without externally applied coercion or control. Emergence means a complex organizational structure growing out of simple rules. Interaction and feedback – Without interaction and feedback there is no emergence or self-organization. Positive feedback enhances and stimulates a system’s capability, whereas the effects of negative feedback are the opposite (detracting, inhibiting). Non-linearity – Non-linearity implies that the behaviour of the system may not depend on the values of the initial conditions. In complex systems, dynamic interactions are non-linear - i.e., small causes can have large results and vice versa. Connectivity and interdependence – Connectivity and interdependence points out that actions by any individual may affect (constrain or enable) related individuals and systems. This means that the whole is not to be found in its parts. Diversity – Diversity is the state or quality of being different. Diversity is the prerequisite source for unpredictable self-organizing and the emergence of novelty.

In addition to the above-mentioned concepts, there are a fairly large number of other concepts in complexity-oriented literature. Concepts such as trust, power, and values have important roles, especially in the context of social systems. Trust is typically seen as a factor that has the potential to promote interaction processes. Luhmann (1995), for example, has stated that trust is tested first – only after that does the social system have the ability to process meanings. Similarly, power is understood as phenomenon related to interaction. Stacey (2010), for example, has emphasized that power is not a thing certain people can wield over others, but a relationship that arises and is shaped in interaction between people. That is to say, one has power when he/she has succeeded in connecting individuals into an integrated whole that has the ability to influence the development of the state of affairs. Furthermore, in the context of a societal innovation such as welfare innovation, it is only rarely a question of reforms that will receive unreserved support from different stakeholders. In addition that, although both the optimism and resistance to innovation may exist, many societal innovations provoke conflicting interests concerning the underlying problem the innovation is designed to address. Therefore, it can be argued

7

that societal innovations take place in state of instead of consensus (cf. Roberts 2000). Dissensus results as the different values conflict with each other (Roberts 2000). Due to the complexity of the service system and the special characteristics of societal innovation, it seems that the ‘normal science’ approach, in the Kuhnian sense, does not fit in with innovation in the post-industrial age (cf. Raisio 2010). For Kuhn (1962 in Bird 2009), normal science is like ‘puzzle-solving’. According to Bird (2009), the main purpose of the term ‘puzzle-solving’ is “to convey the idea that like someone doing crossword puzzles [...], the puzzle-solver expects to have a reasonable chance of solving the puzzle, that his doing so will depend mainly on his own ability, and that the puzzle itself and its methods of solution will have a high degree of familiarity.” In other words, a puzzle-solver operates in the world of certainty, or, as Bird (2009) states, “a puzzle-solver is not entering completely uncharted territory”. Contrary to the puzzle-solver, an innovator is continually operating in the world of uncertainty. Uncertainty is a result of an innovation because it “presents an individual or an organization with a new alternative or alternatives, as well as a new means of solving problems” (Rogers 2003). To speak in the Kuhnian language, puzzles and their solutions are unfamiliar and unknown in a state of uncertainty. Ultimately, it is this uncertainty that calls into question the routines of the normal science approach in the context of innovation. When facing complex problems that have multiple facets (Dryzek 1987), it is not possible to design welfare innovation. In the words of Raisio (2010), “problem ‘wickedness’ calls for much more than just any strictly drafted blue-print”. Hence this paper argues the need for an approach of ‘post-normal science’ (cf. Batie 2008 in Raisio 2010). In this paper, complexity thinking serves as ‘an application’ of ‘post-normal science’. The next section will concentrate on the implications of complexity thinking for innovation in a welfare services system. However, because of the limited scope of this paper, the focus will only be on some aspects of the complexity.

5 ‘Creative abrasion’ as a metaphor for innovation in a complex welfare service system Drawing on complexity theory, this section presents the concept of ‘creative abrasion’. Adapting Leonard-Barton (1995), it is argued that creative abrasion can positively influence the innovation processes in the value net of the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki. Creative abrasion is described as a complex process that includes numerous interactions and interdependencies within the value net and between the net and its surroundings.

5.1 Values and trust guide and enable the innovation efforts in a welfare system

8

Values can be viewed as a collection of principles or rules that guide the behaviour of individual agents. Generally, they determine what objectives and measures are considered legitimate. When looking in more detail, value can be divided into two categories: instrumental and expressive. Adapting Raisio (2010), instrumental value refers to means with which justifiable innovations can be arrived at, whereas expressive value implies the actual process of innovation, especially the moral significance of it. Instrumental value emphasizes the outcome (i.e. innovation), while expressive value emphasizes the process (i.e. action). It is important to notice that the two modes of value are interconnected, especially in the context of innovation. The practical benefit of innovators respecting the expressive value of innovation is explicit: if individual agents perceive that their views are not being respected, they may seek to block otherwise good innovation (adopted and revised from Gutmann & Thompson 2004 in Raisio 2010). Many of the interviewees mentioned the need for common values in the value network of the Social Services Department. It was seen that common values ensure that proposed innovations are suitable for the welfare services context. At a broad level, the importance of common values can be seen as a reflection of broader development where the changing economic and social context has placed pressures on public services. Parker & Bradley (2004), for example, have stated that public organizations need to be more efficient and more flexible in order to respond to the diverse needs of the citizens. As practical embodiments of instrumental values, the interviewees mentioned aspiration for continual development and customer orientation. Respecting the expertise of the professions was considered an example of expressive value. In addition, the interviewees identified that neglecting the moral aspects of the welfare domain may become an obstacle to (sustainable) innovation. This kind of behaviour represents a lack of expressive value. Many of the interviewees strongly emphasized that the role of common values is not to restrict the creativity of the individual agents, but to secure that innovations are congruent with the ethical norms of the welfare professionals and of the Finnish welfare society as a whole. From the value perspective, it is supposed that innovation can be guided by maintaining instrumental and expressive values. This means that innovation should not be seen only as an outcome, but, above all, as a process. In addition to common values, the interviewees stressed the role of trust. Trust was seen to play an important role in building innovation in the welfare service system. The obviously increasing importance of trust can be related to the growing complexity of societies (e.g. Luhmann 1995; Giddens 1990). Jalava (2006 based particularly on the works of Niklas Luhmann), for example, has approach trust as a decision through which one can reduce complexity. According to Luhmann (1979 in Jalava 2006), trust has two interrelated levels: personal and system. Personal trust serves as an element to overcome the uncertainty inherent in the behaviour of other people (Luhmann 1979 in Jalava 2006).

9

Because the decision to trust is oriented towards the future, personal trust always means taking a risk (cf. Jalava 2006). Personal trust is risky because we cannot know the real thoughts of the other. The real thoughts of the other are invisible and therefore difficult to control. The role of personal trust is to act as mechanism that compensates for one’s lack of knowledge of the behaviour of others. However, as Jalava (2006) has put it, “personal trust is not enough to explain the wider processes”. This is where system trust (or confidence) comes into play. Following Luhmann, Jalava (2006) argues that “to be able to act within different systems we must have confidence [system trust] in their functions”. System trust is general and can be enforced by strong norms with positive and negative sanctions (Sztompka 1999 in Jalava 2006). Adapting Luhmann (1979), Sztompka (2002) and Jalava (2006), it can be argued that “personal trust yields to system trust” if personal trust is socialized in the form of normative rules and communication. Personal trust between people can be intensified by normative rules that define trust as proper (Sztompka 2002). However, in order to be normative, the rules must be shared by the members of the system. This necessitates communication. In the context of a social system, personal trust can only be expressed via communication. In communicating with each other, individuals are transforming personal trust into system trust. At its best, trust may become a cultural resource for a social system (cf. Sztompka 2002). Both types of trust were identified as innovation enablers by the interviewees. The interviewees confirmed that personal trust helps to build up space for creativity innovation, and encourages people to ‘see things differently’. Personal trust between people was assessed as a prerequisite for introducing new ideas. It can be said that trust enables playing with ideas (cf. Hjorth 2004). System trust plays an important role when there are issues that include conflicts of interest. System trust was seen as an important factor that enables collaboration between people with conflicting interests. This is because system trust acts as a kind of social adhesive, which provides the necessary coherence in which different actors can express their views based on their interests and values. System trust is based on the idea that “social reality is not only dependent on persons but also on functional systems” (Jalava 2006). In order to act within systems – especially in the case of conflicts – people must have general confidence in their functions. Hence, system trust implies that the new ideas are given every chance to succeed. The results support earlier findings of the importance of values (e.g. Rogers 2003; Hanft & Korper 1981) and the meaning of trust in innovation (e.g. Potts 2009; Parsons 2006; Bhatta 2003). The idea of common values and trust is also consistent with the thoughts of Talcott Parsons (1978), who has stated that “sharing values makes agreement on common goals easier, and ‘confidence’ in competence and integrity makes commitment to mutual involvement in such goals easier…” (Jalava 2006). What seems important is that personal and system trust not only reduces the complexity and makes up for the obscurity caused by imperfect knowledge but also increases certainty, because certainty does not call for

10

correct and certain knowledge but rather the fact that the actors can predict each other’s behaviour (cf. Jalava 2006). Therefore, it is proposed that trust increases the welfare service system´s ability to take risks and stand failures. An atmosphere of trust lowers the mental threshold that suppresses thinking that differs from the conventional. The function of personal and system trust is to balance risk and contingency related to social interaction, and to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity related to the future.

5.2 Responsive interaction produces emergence Despite the common values and trust, however, new ideas sometimes lead in the wrong direction and the course must be revised. This necessitates ideas being questioned and compared, and, when necessary, actors being ready to relinquish their restrictive frames of reference (Popper 1996). Furthermore, as said before, instead of seeking ‘one objective truth’, the welfare domain is full of wicked problems that need to be addressed from the multiple perspectives. Adapting Zimmerman et al. (2008 in Raisio 2010), it is proposed that ‘wicked questions’ are needed – questions which have no obvious answers. By asking wicked questions it is possible to get people to reveal their assumptions and values regarding the proposed innovation and thus open up the innovation further. The idea of wicked questions is to help to prevent the innovation processes being stuck with ‘playing safe’, which is, as Bhatta (2003) has stated, a typical working method in the public sector. According to Bhatta (2003), it is this playing safe culture that means that “public sector bureaucracies engage in incremental pluralistic policy formation that enables the policies to move forward but only marginally at a time”. In an atmosphere where ‘playing safe’ is rewarded, and, therefore, also preferred over ‘playing ideas’ (cf. Hjorth 2004), the outcome is probably something other than seeing things in the new light. In the worst case, avoiding issues that cause disturbance may lead to organizational stagnation – a state that is not very pro-innovation. Based on the above, it is not surprising that the majority of the interviewees emphasized that in order to change the existing practices or services, the goals, consequences and constraints of these changes need to be discussed openly in a collaborative environment. The interviewees demanded open discussions where different actors in the value system of the Social Services Department were gathered together to discuss the common challenges they face. One conceivable way of addressing the openness of discussions is through the notion of ‘responsiveness’. Stacey (2010) defines responsiveness as one of the most fundamental aspects of organizational life and writes that “organizations are not actually existing things but patterns of interactions between people constituted in their responsive acts of

11

communication with each other”. These responsive processes are self-organizing and may produce “emergent patterns that no one chose or wanted” (Stacey 2010). Applied to innovation, it means that no one, including the most powerful individual, can singly control or plan the responsive interplay of ideas presented by others. Focusing on responsive communication processes is in line with the research approach that emphasizes that innovations more often take place in open innovation processes within interfaces between different actors (e.g. Chesbrough 2006; Johansson 2004; Pettigrew & Massini 2003). Responsive processes involve feedback, which is seen in the context of complexity thinking as a mechanism that disturbs the stability and drives the system towards change (Mitleton-Kelly 2003). Feedback processes multiply the connectivity and interdependency of elements within a system and between a system and its environment (Mitleton-Kelly 2003). According to Mitleton-Kelly (2003), “it is the degree of connectivity which determines the network of relationships and the transfer of information and knowledge and is an essential element in feedback”. From the point of view of innovation, positive feedback has the potential to strengthen and intensify the process of generating new ideas – i.e. the seeds of innovation. This is because the relationship between cause and effect is non-linear (Stacey 2007). The feedback processes increase the non-linear characteristics of interaction, “with the potential of leading to both continuity and transformation at the same time – i.e. the emergence of novelty” (Aasen 2009). In real life, the ‘openness’ of the responsive discussion is always a relative concept. This is because the responsive processes are simultaneously both cooperative–competitive in nature (Stacey 2010). While some subjects can be discussed relatively openly in the welfare service system, there are always issues that are limited to certain actors. This became clear in the interviews, where many informants stressed that cooperation between the service providers is difficult because they are each other’s competitors. This coincides, for example, with the results by Aasen (2009), who has stated that participants in innovation processes quite commonly express that they experience a mutual lack of interest. Similarly, Rogers (2003) has noted that communication is effective when individuals are ‘homophilous’ – i.e. they share common meanings, beliefs and attitudes toward innovation. This kind of bias for similarity or familiarity is also found in work by Mark Granovetter. Granovetter (1973) found that there are two types of connections between individuals: strong and weak ties. Strong ties manifest themselves as relationships between individuals that regard each other as similar, which are characterised by a commitment to time, often an emotional attachment and intimacy, whereas weak ties refer to relationships that connect individuals that usually operate in various social environments.

12

Whether cooperative or competitive, however, the most important aspect of these responsive processes is that they have the potential to produce emergence, which, as mentioned earlier, can lead to innovation. As Stacey (2009) writes, “novel organizational developments, good or bad, are caused by the cooperative-competitive interaction” that enables and constrains “the creative-destructive processes of organizational development”. Instead of imposing innovation from the ‘centre of the welfare service system’, innovation should be allowed to emerge from the ‘periphery of the welfare service system’ (cf. Parsons 2006). Therefore, the task of innovation management in the welfare service system is not to control actors but to facilitate responsive processes, which, in the words of Schön (1973), include “detecting significant shifts at the periphery, paying explicit attention to the emergence of ideas in good currency, and deriving themes of policy by induction”. By paying attention to the responsive feedback processes, it is possible to expose the value net of the Social Services Department to new influences and provide the foundation for innovation. Furthermore, in order to avoid being trapped by ‘homophily’ or ‘strong ties’, there is a need for diversity in innovation.

5.3 Diversity enables ‘polyphony of perspectives’ The discussion around similarity and difference is important in the context of innovation. Rogers (2003), for example, has stated that ‘heterophily’ – defined as the degree to which two or more individuals who interact are different in certain attributes – may cause trouble in the diffusion of the innovation. On the other hand, Rogers (2003) admits that if individuals are identical – i.e. ‘homophilous’ – innovation diffusion “cannot occur as there is no new information to exchange”. While ‘heterophily’ may be a problem in the diffusion of the innovation, heterophily is certainly a necessary condition for generating new ideas and seeing things differently. The simple logic of this argument is that actors with different backgrounds have more possibilities to see things in a new light. In the context of innovation, the problem of ‘homophily’ and also ‘strong ties’ is that they may lead to an outcome where there is no new idea or information to exchange, and, therefore, they also prevent seeing things in a new light. In complexity language, heterophily is known as diversity. Put simply, it means that different people have different world views and different abilities to see things. When different people join together, the outcome is, at best, the diversity of the system. And the greater the diversity of the system, the more fit it is (cf. Clippinger 1999). This argument resonates with the principle of ‘requisite variety” (Ashby 1956), which refers to a state where a system’s internal variety is sufficient to match the environmental variety. It can also be argued that diversity increases a system’s absorptive capacity (cf. Cohen & Levinthal 1990) and helps to avoid the problem of cognitive trap (e.g. Morgan 2006). The vast majority of the interviewees deemed diversity an essential aspect of the value system of the Social Service Department. Diversity was seen as important, especially because the needs of the citizens are varied. It was emphasized that it is not possible to

13

develop new services without understanding those various needs. In the words of Raisio (2010), “as the citizens are experts of lived life, they know the reality of the [wicked] problems”. Furthermore, many interviewees stressed that getting understanding requires knowledge that is dispersed between different actors. This necessitates working across organizational boundaries. The need for diversity is obvious. Diversity is needed for improving the knowledge base of innovation in the value system of the Social Services Department. Diversity was also seen as important from the point of view of the legitimacy of the innovation. Many interviewees emphasized that innovation should take account of the diversity of values of the professions working in social services. It was stressed that if the innovation is perceived as inconsistent with the values of the professions, individuals may oppose the proposed innovation. In other words, the acceptance of an innovation is dependent on the individual´s existing world views (cf. Hurst 1982). Diversity – if seen as diversity of knowledge and values – is crucial for innovation because it allows the “polyphonia of perspectives”. The term ‘polyphonic’ is derived from Greek words referring to “many-voiced” or “producing many sounds” (Hazen 1993). Hazen (1993) uses polyphony as metaphor for organizational change. According to Hazen (1993), the metaphor of polyphony “supports inclusive change as it helps us to hear [...] people who speak with another in their own voices”. Adapting the thoughts of Hazen, Clegg et al. (2006) have considered organizations “discourses that manifest themselves in particular instances of voice”. Organizational discourses are conducted “in order to make sense of past events and to seek legitimacy for future action” (Clegg et al. 2006). The idea of polyphony is also useful for innovation in the value net of the Social Services Department, at least for two reasons. Firstly, it admits that every actor in a system has their own perspective on the ideas at hand. It means that the truth (if any) lies between these multiple perspectives (cf. Stenvall et al. 2010). Therefore, it is congruent with the wicked nature of innovation in social services. By listening to multiple voices, it is possible to come across with wicked problems and make room for different rationalities (cf. Clegg et al. 2006). Stressing the importance of silent voices, it is possible to avoid a too monological organizational culture (cf. Stenvall et al. 2010; Clegg et al. 2006), which has been widely recognized as an obstacle to innovation (e.g. Shane 1995; Morris et al. 1993). Secondly, polyphony not only refers to the fact that everyone has their own point of view but also implies the plurality of the values. The process of tackling wicked problems in welfare services is always political (cf. Raisio 2010), in which people mutually enable and constrain each other (Aasen 2009). Instead of seeing different perspectives as static representations that should be receptively noticed, the idea of polyphony emphasizes “the creative interaction of contradictory and different voices” (Morris 1984 in Glegg et al. 2006). The concept of “polyphony of perspectives” and its emphasis on organizational discourses has obvious similarity with the basic elements of complexity thinking.

14

Adapting the thoughts of Prigogine (1997), Allen (1998), for example, has stated that differences between the actors, referred to as ‘disorder’, are a prerequisite for the unpredictable self-organizing emergence of novelty (Aasen 2009). This is compatible with the argument stated by Fonseca (2002) in claiming that innovation is “the new meaning that is the emerging product of the dissipation occurring in conversations characterized by redundant diversity experienced as misunderstanding”. In complexity language, misunderstanding can be seen as an example of being ‘far-from-equilibrium’. When systems are pushed ‘far-from-equilibrium’, they are able to create new structures and order (Mitleton-Kelly 2006). Hence, contrary to everyday language, Fonseca (2002) approaches ‘misunderstanding’ not as a problem for innovation but as a necessary condition for seeing things in a new light. This is because innovation emerges from conversational processes characterized by conflict, ambiguity and persuasion (Aasen 2009). In other words, misunderstanding results from both the differences in knowledge as well as the differences in values between individuals. The status of conversations is also important for Shaw (2002), who has stated that ordinary conversations within organizations are sources of emerging organizational change and innovation. Shaw (2002) introduces the idea of the deliberate introduction of slack in organizational conversation, which she considers can be used to increase diversity and multiplicity of ideas. Overall, these organizational discourses/conversations can be seen as manifestations of complex responsive processes that emerge from self-organizing communicative actions involving conflicts of interests (cf. Stacey 2010; Aasen 2009). By paying attention to the diversity of the system, it is possible to increase the “polyphony of perspectives”. The diversity of the value net of the Social Services Department can be increased, for example, by introducing ‘boundary spanning’. This refers to a process whereby a loose combination of the different functions, duties, processes and roles are used to regulate the information flows within the system and between the system and its surroundings (cf. Maula 2006; Levina & Vaast 2005). By boundary spanning, the value net of the Social Services Department of the City of Helsinki can ensure that it has openness to new ideas and influences. However, as suggested before, boundary spanning or other activities to increase the system’s openness is not easy. This is because diversity always has the potential to raise conflicts of interests. Therefore, while the idea of ‘polyphony of perspectives’ has great appeal, it also forces consideration of the role of power in the innovation process. As Stenvall et al. (2010) note (based on Clegg et al. 2006), “the polyphonic approach suggests that discourse is a battlefield of power”.

5.4 Enabling power hides in interaction Power has been one of the most interesting research areas within the social sciences. It is central to all human affairs. According to Roberts (2003 in Turner 2005), power is the

15

basis of society: “The ability of one person to make a hundred others do his […] bidding is the basic building block upon which all collective human endeavour is based”. Despite the small differences in nuances, scholars in the field agree that power is not absolute, but is relative to a given relationship and situation. Turner (2005), for example, has argued that “power is an emergent property of specific social and psychological relations between people and these relationships shape the form it takes”. Power is fundamentally related to relationships between people, which, in turn, means that power involves conflicts of interests. Typically, conflicts of interests are seen ‘negatively’. By this is meant that power is used to constrain others’ freedom of choice. When someone who has authority over others feels insecure, such as when he or she faces an idea that threatens his or her position, he or she may use power to close further development of the idea. Stacey (2007), for example, has found that resistance to new ideas is a typical attempt to uphold established power. On the other hand, power can be seen ‘positively’ as a resource for achieving something. Jenkins (2009), for example, depicts power as an ability to act. For Jenkins (2009), power means an efficient resource with which to achieve one´s target. One of the most influential arguments for ‘positive’ power has been presented by Michel Foucault. According to Foucault (1980), power is a productive force that extends to social settings. He rationalizes his argument by stating that if power were only used for constraining and inhibiting, it loses its legitimacy, even if it had been legitimate – i.e. people would not obey that kind of force. The legitimacy of power depends on its ability to create pleasure and produce new knowledge (Foucault 1980). The relationship between power and knowledge can also be found in the texts by Hannah Arendt. Arendt (2003) argues that power is akin to knowledge in the sense that they are both resources that do not diminish when used. On the contrary, sharing them can actuate a self-enforcing phenomenon. Furthermore, Arendt (2003) stresses the role of interaction. She argues that power – inherent in interaction between people – enables seeing not only one's own point of view but also that of others. The dual nature of power was identified in the interviews as well. Some of the interviewees confirmed that due to conflicts of interests, promising ideas were occasionally suppressed by a more ‘powerful’ actor. A typical way of doing this was to require that the proposer of the idea or innovation should also present accurate cost-benefit calculations for the idea/innovation. This kind of requirement contradicts the research findings obtained in innovation studies. Rogers (2003) and Sveiby et al. (2009), for example, have argued that the consequences of innovation are always more or less uncertain, meaning that they cannot be fully predicted in advance. The consequences of innovation can be direct or indirect, desirable or undesirable, or anticipated or unanticipated (Sveiby et al. 2009; Rogers 2003). Hence the requirement for an accurate assessment of a given innovation can be seen as an example of negative power. It is a powerful means to stop the development of unwanted ideas into innovation. This

16

coincides with the thoughts of Pfeffer (1992), who has found that power is a focal element in organizational decisions concerning resource allocations. The interviewees also recognized several situations in which interaction between people extended the space of possibilities. Interactions were seen as processes that produced the power to do things. All the interviewees stressed the importance of co-operation when planning new services. Instead of addressing power as a necessary factor for influence (cf. ‘power over’), power was seen as a consequence of the success in influencing the state of affairs by the participating interactive processes (cf. ‘power to’). What was also deemed important was that co-operative planning activities should be as open as possible to all the actors of the value net of the Social Services Department. This resonates with the idea of ‘polyphony’. As Clegg et al. (2006) suggest, “polyphony does not deny power, but it does not assume domination either – it proposes that questions can be raised from the auspices of different rationales”. The results of the interviews are congruent with the thoughts of Elias 1991 (in Aasen 2009), who has argued that power is an intrinsic aspect of human life through which people are continually enabling and restraining each other. Adapting Aasen (2009), this paper claims that the power structures of the value net of the Social Services Department could paradoxically contribute to the inefficiency of the innovation processes, while, at the same time, they may promote positive attention towards emerging new themes. Furthermore, this paper suggests that power should be seen as a ‘positive-sum game; a win-win situation of collaboration (cf. Raisio 2010), where there is also room for ‘hidden voices’ (cf. Stenvall et al. 2010; Clegg et al. 2006).

6. Conclusions This paper has presented the elements of the concept of ‘creative abrasion’. Creative abrasion is a complex process that is simultaneously an emergent whole based on local interactions between different actors and a global structure that directs those interaction processes. It is important to notice that, as a phenomenon, creative abrasion is dynamic. This means that instead of being one system-wide creative abrasion, there are several creative abrasions in a welfare service system. Creative abrasions are based on local processes of interaction in the living present (Fonseca 2002). They form, operate and disappear when and where necessary. Creative abrasion builds on personal and systemic trust, common values, responsive interaction between diverse actors, polyphony of perspectives, and enabling power. In creative abrasion, diverse approaches grate against one another in a responsive atmosphere, creating a good basis for seeing things differently. Trust and common values act as a social adhesive that hinder the escalation of conflicting interests. They enable and direct interaction between diverse actors. Interaction between diverse actors creates

17

polyphony of perspectives. With a diversity of actors and many-sidedness of perspectives it is also possible to avoid a naive belief in ‘one objective truth’. Belief in ‘one objective truth’ is naive because the context of the welfare domain is full of wicked problems – i.e. problems that are subjective in the sense that more than one actor can have an equally ‘right’ opinion about it. The success in searching for and generating new and legitimately sound ideas and proposals acts as feedback, which, in turn, may further (non-linearly) strengthen the trust and common values within the system and reinforce the interaction between diverse actors. Interaction engenders enabling power, which empowers actors to seek new proposed settlements for existing conflicting interests. The legitimacy of enabling power rests on the actors’ ability to reach solutions that surmount the original conflicts. At its best, the result is an innovative emergent structure (i.e. creative abrasion) that is created by and for successful interaction processes between the actors within a complex welfare service system. By challenging the appropriateness of the conventional management and administrative activities (i.e. goal setting, planning, monitoring and controlling) for promoting innovations, this paper is situated in an emerging research perspective called Complex Responsive Processes (e.g. Stacey 2009, Aasen 2009, Fonseca 2002). At the heart of the CRP perspective is the idea that managers cannot actually arrange or operate in organizational processes of interaction in order to promote innovation; they can only participate in them. In this sense, it can be argued that this paper opens up the potential for the movement of thought in innovation research, particularly in the welfare services context. Reflecting the empirical findings in the literature on innovation and complexity, this paper opens new insights for practitioners to interpret their own innovation environment. One of the most important issues embedded in the concept of ‘creative abrasion’ is acceptance of the paradox of “being in charge but not in control” (cf. Shaw 2002). Instead of equalling management with the elimination of uncertainty related to the innovation processes, management should be seen as consisting of activities that have effect on ongoing interaction processes within a complex welfare service system. These effects can be anticipated, but not fully known. It is suggested that managing innovation in complex welfare service systems requires the ability to articulate emerging themes, to stand ‘co-opetition’ states of diversity, to acknowledge the boundaries of rational thinking and resist the urge to rapidly draw conclusions, and reflect on one´s own behaviour and its consequences. Finally, it is important to notice that this paper has focused on the early stages of innovation – i.e. the conception of new ideas and proposals. Presumably some of the elements of creative abrasion are also useful in the later stages of innovation processes – i.e. the implementation of new ideas and proposals. For example, it is reasonable to expect that trust also plays a crucial role in the implementation of an innovation.

18

However, focusing on the initiation stage of an innovation, this paper illustrates some aspects of the hidden dynamics of “seeing differently” – not the dynamics of “doing differently”.

Acknowledgements

This paper has been written as a part of a two-year research project studying the management of the value network of social services in the City of Helsinki, Finland. The project is primarily funded by The Finnish Work Environment Fund, and this paper is also funded by Turku University of Applied Sciences. The author appreciates the comments and suggestions for improvements by Professor Antti Lönnqvist and Dr. Harri Laihonen from Tampere University of Technology, and Dr. Ilpo Laitinen and Dr. Kim Aarva from the City of Helsinki, and Dr. Pekka Juntunen from University of Lapland on drafts of this article.

Bibliographical Notes

Dr. Harri Jalonen is Principal Lecturer at the Department of Business Administration, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland. Harri Jalonen has long-term research experience dealing with the knowledge and innovation management issues in different organizational contexts.

References

Aasen, T. M. B. (2009) Innovation as social processes. A participative study of the Statoil R & D program Subsea Increased Oil Recovery (SIOR), Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Agranoff, R. (2007) Managing within networks: adding value to public organizations, Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. Allen, Peter M. (1998) “Evolving complexity in social science”, In Altman, G. & Koch, W. A. (Ed.) Systems: New paradigms for human sciences, Walter de Gruyter, New York, NY. Arendt, H. (2003) The portable Hannah Arendt, (Ed.) Peter Baehr, Penquin Classics, New York, NY. Ashby, W. R. (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, London. Batie, S.S. (2008) “Wicked Problems and Applied Economics”, American journal of agricultural economics, Vol. 90, No. 1176–1191. Bessant, J. (2008) “Dealing with discontinuous innovation: the European experience”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 42, No. 1/2, 36–50.

19

Bhatta, G. (2003) “Don't just do something, stand there! - Revisiting the issue of risks in innovation in the public sector”, The Innovation Journal, Vol. 8, No 2. Bird, A. (2009) "Thomas Kuhn", in Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/thomas-kuhn/ Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., Carter, C. & Rhodes, C. (2006) “For Management?”, Management Learning, Vol. 37, No. 1, 7–27. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (Ed.) (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Clippinger, J. H. III. (1999) (Ed.) The Biology of Business: decoding the natural laws of enterprise, 1–30. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, Issue 1, 128–152. Dryzek, J. S. (1987) “Complexity and Rationality in Public Life”, Political Studies, Vol. 35, 424–442. Elias, N. (1991) The Symbol Theory, Sage Publications, London. Fonseca, J. (2002) Complexity and innovation in organizations, Routledege, New York, NY. Goldstein, J. A. (1999) “Emergence as a construct: History and issues”, Emergence, Vol. 1, No. 1, 49–72. Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. Pantheon Books, New York, NY. Giannakouris, K. (2008) Ageing characteristics of the demographic perspectives of the European societies, Population and social conditions Statistics in Focus72. Eurostat. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press. Goldstein, J. A. (2003) “Emergence, creativity, and the logic of following and negating”, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford. Granovetter, M. (1973) “The Strength of Weak Ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6, 1360–1380. Hanft, R. S. & Korper, S. P. (1981) ”Some notes on uncertainty; federal policy and innovation”, Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 11, 1–7.

20

Hartley, J. (2006) Innovation and its Contribution to Improvement. A Review for Policy-Makers, Policy Advisors, Managers and Researchers, Department for Communities and Local Government, London. Hazen, M. A. (1993) “Towards Polyphonic Organization”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 6, No. 5, 15–26. Hazy, J. K., Goldstein., J. A. & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2007) Complex Systems Leadership Theory New Perspectives from Complexity Science on Social and Organizational Effectiveness, ISCE Publishing, Mansfield. Hjorth, D. (2004) “Creating space for play/invention – concepts of space and organizational entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 16, Issue 5, 413–432. Hurst, P. (1982) “Ideas into action development and the acceptance of innovations”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 1, No. 3, 79–102. Jalava, J. (2006) Trust as a Decision. The Problems and Functions of Trust in Luhmannian Systems Theory. Doctoral Dissertation. Research Reports 1/2006, University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Jenkins, R. (2009) “The Ways and Means of Power: Efficacy and Resources”, In Clegg, S. R. & Haugaard, M. (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Power, 140–156, Sage. Johansson, F. (2004) The Medici Effect – Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Cultures, Harvard Business School Press. Klijn, E.-H. & Teisman, G. R. (2003) “Institutional and Strategic Barriers to Public-Private Partnership: An Analysis of Dutch Cases”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 23, Issue 3, 137–146. Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995) Well-springs of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Levina, N. & Vaast, E. (2005) ”The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2, 335–363. Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and Power. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Luhmann, N. (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Marshall, D. & Rossman, G. B. (2006) Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

21

Maula, M. (2006) Organizations as Learning Systems. `Living Composition´as an Enabling Infrastructure, Advanced Series in Management. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003) “Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures.” In Mitleton-Kelly, E. (Ed.) Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organizations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organizations, 23–50. Pergamon. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2006) “A complexity Approach to Co-creating an Innovative Environment”, World Futures, Vol. 62, No. 3, 223–239. Morgan, G. (2006) Images of Organization, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Morris, P. (1984) “Introduction”, in Morris, P. (Ed.) The Bakhtin Reader, 1–24, Edward Arnold, London. Morris, M., Avila, R. A. & Allen, J. (1993) ”Individualism and the modern corporations: Implications for innovation and entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, 595–612. Ortt, J. R. & Smits, R. (2006) “Innovation management: different approaches to cope with the same trends”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 34, No. 3/4, 296–318. Parker, R. & Bradley, L. (2004) “Bureaucracy or Post-Bureaucracy? Public Sector Organizations in a Changing Context”, The Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 26, No. 2, 197–215. Parsons, T. (1978) Action Theory and the Human Condition, Free Press, New York, NY. Parsons, W. (2006) “Innovation in the public sector: Spare tyres and fourth plinths”, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2. Pettigrew, A. M & Massini, S. (2003) “Innovative forms of Organizing: Trends in Europe, Japan and the USA in the 1990s”, In Pettigrew, A. M., Whittington, R. Melin, L., Sánchez-Runde, C, Van den Bosch, F., Ruigrok, W. & Numagami, T (Ed.) Innovative forms of Organizing. International perspectives, 1–32. Sage Publications, London. Pfeffer, J. (1992) Managing with Power. Politics and Influence in Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Popper, K. R. (1996) The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. Routledge, New York, NY. Potts, J. (2009) “The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 11, Issue 1, 34–43. Prigogine, I. (1997) The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature, The Free Press, New York, NY.

22

Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1985) Order Out of Chaos, Flamingo. Raisio, H. (2010) Embracing the Wickedness of Health Care - Essays on Reforms, Wicked Problems and Public Deliberation. Academic Dissertation. Acta Wasaensia No 228, Social and Health Management 5, Universitatis Wasaensis. Roberts, A. (2003) Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of leadership, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. Roberts, N. (2000) “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution”, International Public Management Review – electronic Journal, Vol. 1. No. 1, 1–19. Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, NY. Schön, D. A. (1973) Beyond the Stable State: Public and Private Learning in a Changing Society. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Shane, S. (1995) “Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation championing roles”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, 47–68. Shaw, P. (2002) Changing conversations in organizations. A complexity approach to change, Routledge, London. Stacey, R. D. (2007) Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, London. Stacey, R. (2010) Complexity and Organizational Realities: Uncertainty and the Need to Rethink Management after the Collapse of Investment Capitalism, Routledge, London. Stenvall, J., Nyholm, I. & Rannisto, P-H. (2010) ”Polyphonous leadership and the management of entirety”, a paper presented at EGPA Conference, September 2010, Toulouse, France. Sveiby, K-E., Gripenberg, P., Segercrantz, B., Eriksson, A. & Aminoff, A. (2009) “Unintended and Undesirable Consequences of Innovation”, a paper presented at XX ISPIM conference The Future of Innovation, Vienna 21st – 24th of June, 2009. Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: A Sociological Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sztompka, P. (2002) “Trust a Cultural Resource” (Background paper for the project “Honesty and Trust”) http://www.colbud.hu/honesty-trust/sztompka/pub01.PD Turner, J. C. (2005) “Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 35, 1–22. United Nations (2008) e-Goverment Survey 2008. From e-Government to connected governance. United Nations.

23

Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C., Plsek, P. (2008) Edgeware: Insights form complexity science for health care leaders, VHA Inc, Irving, Texas. www.stat.fi http://www.stat.fi/til/vaenn/2009/vaenn_2009_2009-09-30_tie_001_fi.html