state-of-the-art questionnaire

State-of-the-Art Questionnaire

Preliminary ResultsGävle, October 2nd-4th 2012

Picture courtesy of http://carmodymoran.ie/2012/05/22/personal-injury-statistics/

Drawings courtesy of Office.com unless noted otherwise. Charts, tables and maps produced in-house by ARC Fund.

Summary• Sample used for this

presentation – current as of September 24th 2012

• Total submitted questionnaires at the time: 107

• Started but not yet completed: more than 300

• Partners need to continue communicating to stakeholders and encourage them to submit their responses

• Some countries did better than others in terms of reaching out


Sort of a Disclaimer

• These are NOT final results – do not make conclusions just yet

• All data shown henceforth are for demonstration purposes only; final analysis will be conducted upon closing the questionnaire

• Most of the tools you see now will be used to inform and guide the final analysis; meanings will most likely differ


Let’s recap• The purpose of the questionnaire• Approach – both pros and cons, technical

issues (online administration, anonymity, translation of questions), logistical issues (summer holidays, not aligned)

• The questionnaire and the stakeholder interviews are complementary tools, not independent of each other; so is the analysis thereof

• Questionnaire focused on assessing organisational and environmental dimensions of innovation; interviews provide a more personal perspective


General respondents’ profile


Distribution by country• Big difference in the number

of respondents from each country – no grounds for country-based analysis

• Clearly, the number of completed surveys does not depend on population size

• We need to aim for near-equal distribution of responses across countries

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Spai

n

Pola

nd

Italy

Finl

and

Swed

en

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m

Esto

nia

Rom

ania

Bulg

aria

Neth

erla

nds

N = 107

Num

ber o

f com

plet

ed su

rvey

s

Spain24%

Poland20%

Italy15%

Finland14%

Sweden9%

United Kingdom6%

Estonia5%

Romania4%

Bulgaria2%

Netherlands2%


Population size• Respondents come from

various communities in terms of size

• Those from places of fewer than 500,000 inhabitants slightly more (52% vs 48%)

Less than 250,000 250,001 - 500,000 500,001 - 1,000,000

More than 1,000,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

49%

4%

18%

30%


Highly educated respondents!• More than 80% of the

respondents have completed university education

• They must know what they are talking about!

Master'

s degr

ee

Bachelo

r's deg

ree

College e

ducation

PhD

Post-docto

ral degr

ee

Secondary

educati

on0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

43.0%

23.4%

15.0%

14.0%

2.8% 1.9%


Age and gender• Equal numbers of men

and women as respondents

• Half of respondents younger than 45

• No one under 26

Male49.5%

Female50.5%

Less than 26 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 More than 65

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


General information aboutorganisations


Organisational affiliations• Most respondents come

from a local authority• Very much missing the

perspective of the business, civil society and that of central govern-mental institutions

Local au

thority, su

ch as a m

unicipali

ty

Universi

ty or o

ther aca

demic i

nstitution

A publicly-o

wned en

terpris

e - a p

rivate

compan

y, parti

ally o

r fully

owned by a

public body

Regional

authorit

y, with

juris

diction over

sever

al municip

alities

Civil so

ciety

(nonprofit, nongo

vern

mental

) orga

nisation

Local dev

elopmen

t agen

cyOther

Private

business

, such

as an

SME o

r a la

rger c

orporation

A ministr

y or o

ther cen

tral go

vernmen

t institution

05

1015202530354045

39.3%

14.0%11.2%

10.3%

9.3%

6.5%

3.7%3.7% 1.9%


Respondents by country and type of organisation

• Darker spots indicate higher concentration of responses

• Italian local authorities have responded more frequently compared to other combinations

Local

authorit

y

Regional a

uthority

Civil s

ociety orga

nisation

Centra

l gove

rnment

Publicly

owned enterp

rise

Local

developmen

t age

ncy

Private

business

Universi

ty

OtherTo

talSh

are

Bulgaria 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%Estonia 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5%Finland 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 6 1 15 14%

Italy 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 15%Netherlands 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2%

Poland 5 0 3 2 3 1 1 4 2 21 20%Romania 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 4%

Spain 6 4 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 26 24%Sweden 2 3 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 10 9%

United Kingdom 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 6%Total 42 11 10 2 12 7 4 15 4 107

Share 39% 10% 9% 2% 11% 7% 4% 14% 4%


Position at workplace• Perspectives skewed away

from those of higher management and political leadership

• Opportunity to get the opinions of those directly involved in implementation and operations

Political

decisio

n-make

r/Policy

-mak

er

Higher

manage

ment

Middle man

agem

ent

OfficerOther

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

6.5%

18.7%

27.1%

40.2%

7.5%


Positions of respondents in their organisations

• Most often, respondents occupy an officer-level or middle management position at a local authority

Officer

Middle man

agement

Higher manage

ment

Political d

ecision-m

aker o

r policy

-make

r

OtherTo

talSh

are

Local authority, such as a municipality 23 10 3 2 4 42 39%

Regional authority, with jurisdiction over several municipalities

6 3 1 1 0 11 10%

Civil society (nonprofit, nongovernmental) organisation

2 1 4 0 3 10 9%

A ministry or other central government institution

2 0 0 0 0 2 2%

A publicly-owned enterprise - a private company, partially or fully owned by a

2 3 5 2 0 12 11%

Local development agency 2 4 1 0 0 7 7%

University or other academic institution 5 5 3 1 1 15 14%

Private business, such as an SME or a larger corporation

1 2 1 0 0 4 4%

Other 0 1 2 1 0 4 4%

Total 43 29 20 7 8 107

Share 40% 27% 19% 7% 7%


Innovation responsibilities

• Very few of the respondents are not involved with innovation• It is mostly the officers and middle managers who give new ideas, but

in most cases sanction is needed from a higher-level position

Officer

Middle man

agement

Higher manag

ement

Politica

l decis

ion-make

r

OtherTo

talSh

are

I am not involved in or responsible for any innovation 5 4 9 8%

I frequently draft new policies and/or am directly in charge of planning and the carrying out of new ideas

13 9 6 1 29 27%

I make the decision whether a measure should be implemented or not 2 5 1 8 7%

I monitor and/or evaluate the implementation of new ideas/processes/methods and communicate the results up in the hierarchy

2 5 5 1 2 15 14%

I sometimes propose new policies or organisational methods, but am not directly in charge with action planning

23 13 4 5 1 46 43%

Total 43 29 20 7 8 107

Share 40% 27% 19% 7% 7%


Size of organisation• Majority of respondents

come from bigger institutions

Up to 10 11 - 50 51 - 200 201 - 1000 More than 1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Up to 103.7%

11 - 5015.9%

51 - 20018.7%

201 - 100025.2%

More than 100036.4%


Organisations’ budgets• The majority of

respondents come from organisations operating with very large budgets

Less t

han 1,000,000

1,000,001 - 5,000,000

5,000,001 - 25,000,000

25,000,001 - 100,000,000

100,000,001 - 500,000,000

More than

500,000,000

Don't know

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Less than 1,000,0006%

1,000,001 - 5,000,000

11%

5,000,001 - 25,000,000

20%

25,000,001 - 100,000,00

011%

100,000,001 - 500,000,000

11%

More than 500,000,000

19%

Don't know22%


Innovation in organisations


Innovation units in organisations• Almost half of the respondents

indicate their organisation has a specific unit, whose focus is innovation

• It is interesting to see which types of organisations have such units…Yes

48%

No43%

Don't know9%


Type of organisation Has innova

tion unit

Does not h

ave in

novation unit

A ministry or other central government institution 0 2

A publicly-owned enterprise - a private company, partial ly or fully owned by a public body

8 4

Civil society (nonprofit, nongovernmental) organisation

6 4

Local authority, such as a municipality 13 20

Local development agency 4 3

Other 2 2

Private business, such as an SME or a larger corporation

4 0

Regional authority, with jurisdiction over several municipalities

7 4

University or other academic institution 7 7

Total 51 46

Share 47,7% 43,0%

Innovation-focused units in organisations

• Overall, most respondents report the presence of a specialised unit focusing on innovation

• All private businesses have such units; none of the central government administrations do

• Remember – this is NOT representative

• Overall, it appears very likely for a local authority to have such a unit

Numbers indicate absolute value of responses. Intensity of background colour changes with number.


Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

No

data

Mayor 3,80 3,00 3,13 3,00 2,71 4,67 3,30 4,00 2,00

City council 2,20 3,60 2,40 4,00 1,57 4,33 3,10 2,60 4,50

Other collective policy body

3,60 4,00 3,00 1,00 3,14 3,33 2,70 3,20 4,00

Higher administrative personnel

4,40 3,60 3,60 1,00 3,29 3,00 3,50 4,00 3,50

Front-line workers 3,80 3,20 2,33 1,00 3,14 2,33 3,50 2,80 3,00

Service managers 3,80 3,00 3,40 1,00 3,00 4,00 3,80 3,40 3,50

No

data

Who is the most influential on decisions about innovation?

• Only data from public authorities

• In Romania – both the Mayor and the City Council have the strongest influence

• In the UK it’s mostly the City Council, along with other collective policy bodies; Mayor is least influential

• In Estonia – the administration has the leading edge

Numbers represent the mean of all responses on a scale, where 1 stands for the lowest influence, and 5 – for the highest influence.


Where is innovationneeded the most?

• Strategic innovation, the way services are delivered, and the way policies are designed, are ranked the highest by the respondents

• The above suggests that innovation will most likely affect the way administrations are structured, decision-making systems operate, and towards improving the quality and efficiency of services provided

• Respondents see the way current services are delivered as more in need of innovation than the introduction of new services

• How does the situation differ across countries?

The way organizational priorities are set (strategic innovation)

2,22

The way services are delivered 2,47

The way policies are designed 2,59

The quality of services provided 2,62

Organisational structure 2,75

Tax policies and implementation 2,80

Utilisation of new technologies 2,84

Management culture 2,88

The way decisions are made 2,89

Introduction of new organisational systems 2,94

Financial planning and management 3,00

Communication with other public authorities and/or specific structures

3,00

Communication with other organisations from the same industry

3,09

Introduction of new services 3,19

Interdepartmental communications 3,19

Training and capacity development for staff 3,23

The cost of services produced 3,37

Human resources management 3,39

Communication with citizens 3,52

Outsourcing of managerial or control functions to external vendors

4,08


• Clearly, different countries have different expectations of innovation

• Standard deviation row – shows how much variability is among each category within each country

• Standard deviation column – shows how much variability is present for each category among countries

• The higher the standard deviation score, the greater the variability

Mean ra

nk score

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

St. dev

iation

Communication with citizens 2,00 4,33 3,42 5,00 3,82 3,50 3,57 2,33 4,00 0,928


4,00 2,33 3,00 2,00 4,00 5,00 1,143


3,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 3,25 2,33 4,50 2,00 0,907

Financial planning and management 1,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 4,33 2,67 1,00 1,311

Human resources management 5,00 1,00 3,25 4,33 3,00 3,33 3,00 5,00 2,33 5,00 1,318

Interdepartmental communications 5,00 3,00 3,20 1,00 3,50 4,00 1,00 1,488

Introduction of new organisational systems

3,00 3,50 4,00 2,83 2,00 3,00 3,50 2,00 0,710

Introduction of new services 4,00 3,33 5,00 4,00 2,67 3,25 3,00 3,00 0,758

Management culture 3,00 2,29 2,67 3,50 2,50 3,33 4,33 0,702

Organisational structure 2,50 3,67 2,50 2,83 1,50 3,00 0,715


5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 4,00 4,00 5,00 1,50 1,223

Tax policies and implementation 2,00 3,00 1,00 5,00 3,50 2,33 1,376

The cost of services produced 5,00 4,33 2,83 3,50 3,00 2,75 5,00 5,00 1,017

The quality of services provided 2,00 2,50 3,17 2,67 2,14 1,00 2,80 2,33 4,00 0,827

The way decisions are made 1,00 2,33 2,75 3,00 2,33 2,67 3,17 3,67 3,50 0,794


2,00 4,00 2,33 2,11 2,00 3,00 1,00 2,09 2,00 2,20 0,776

The way policies are designed 3,00 2,00 3,40 1,67 1,00 3,60 1,83 2,00 5,00 1,240

The way services are delivered 1,00 2,00 3,00 1,75 3,00 1,00 2,44 1,50 3,50 0,908

Training and capacity development for staff

2,00 2,83 3,33 5,00 2,50 4,00 3,71 3,75 3,00 0,892

Utilisation of new technologies 4,00 4,00 2,67 2,00 4,00 2,42 4,00 2,63 3,25 0,808

Standard deviation 1,491 1,295 0,815 0,953 1,453 0,928 1,280 0,882 1,081 1,345


• Overall, different types of organisations see potential for innovation across different areas

• Priorities vary the least for local authorities (see standard deviation columns)

• Some institutional types are more likely to have a clear priority than others

Mean ra

nk score

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

St. dev

iation

Local

authorit

y

Regional au

thority

Civil so

ciety orga

nisation

Centra

l govern

ment insti

tuion

Publicly o

wned enterp

rise

Local

development a

gency

Private

business

Universi

ty

OtherSta

ndard deviation

Communication with citizens 3,35 3,75 3,33 3,50 5,00 3,50 3,67 3,00 0,596


2,80 4,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 0,590


2,56 2,60 4,00 4,00 3,60 0,725

Financial planning and management 2,25 3,00 3,00 3,50 5,00 2,00 1,069

Human resources management 3,25 2,50 3,50 4,00 3,00 3,67 3,00 0,497

Interdepartmental communications 3,55 4,00 2,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 2,00 0,909

Introduction of new organisational systems 3,29 3,00 2,00 1,50 3,00 4,00 0,904

Introduction of new services 4,00 3,50 3,33 3,50 2,25 4,00 2,67 2,75 3,00 0,602

Management culture 3,00 2,50 4,50 2,00 3,00 2,33 2,00 3,50 1,00 1,005

Organisational structure 3,00 2,00 3,00 2,67 2,00 0,506


3,63 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 0,615

Tax policies and implementation 2,25 3,00 4,00 2,50 0,774

The cost of services produced 3,17 4,33 3,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 5,00 1,149

The quality of services provided 2,60 4,33 2,00 1,50 3,00 4,00 3,17 1,00 1,165

The way decisions are made 2,92 2,33 2,00 2,00 5,00 3,50 1,157


2,14 2,00 2,25 2,33 3,00 1,00 2,60 0,620

The way policies are designed 2,88 2,17 2,67 5,00 2,25 2,00 2,00 4,00 1,085

The way services are delivered 2,58 2,00 2,75 2,25 1,00 3,50 1,80 3,50 0,851

Training and capacity development for staff 3,10 4,67 2,00 3,25 4,50 3,00 2,57 4,00 0,933

Utilisation of new technologies 2,85 2,50 4,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 2,00 0,851

Standard deviation 0,483 0,966 0,935 1,618 0,939 1,059 1,112 0,868 1,301


Innovation in the Public Sector


Mean ra

nk score

To improve the quality and efficiency of public services

2,19

To meet public needs and expectations 2,20

To increase the responsiveness of services to local and individual needs

3,03

To enhance innovation potential of the private sector 3,15

To improve the process of public policy design 3,16

To reduce cost pressures of operation 3,18

To improve communication with the other sectors - industry and civil society organizations

3,32

To enable provision of new services 3,35

To enable the effective use of technological resources 3,40

To engage the public in a more effective way in the governance process (improved democratic process)

3,44

To influence public views and public behaviour 3,71

Reasons to innovatein the public sector

• Overall, the reason most often cited as being the most important for innovation relates to the quality and efficiency of public services

• It’s likely that future innovation will be planned out in response to public needs

• Based on mean rank score, it could be inferred that there are four distinct “clusters” of reasons

• How do countries differ?


Mean ra

nk score

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

Standard devia

tion

To enable provision of new services 2,00 4,33 4,17 3,60 2,00 2,82 3,00 3,11 4,33 3,00 0,867

To enable the effective use of technological resources 3,50 3,30 3,60 3,55 4,00 2,88 3,60 0,342


3,67 3,50 3,31 3,00 3,00 2,67 3,83 4,00 2,50 0,520

To enhance innovation potential of the private sector 2,00 5,00 2,00 5,00 3,00 3,50 2,50 3,13 3,67 4,00 1,081


1,80 3,50 4,00 3,22 3,73 3,43 5,00 0,959

To improve the process of public policy design 2,00 3,00 3,20 3,75 2,89 3,40 0,594

To improve the quality and efficiency of public services

3,00 2,20 2,50 2,07 2,00 2,25 3,00 1,81 2,13 2,50 0,404


4,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 3,86 2,00 2,83 3,00 2,50 0,694

To influence public views and public behaviour 4,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 0,548

To meet public needs and expectations 3,00 1,20 2,50 2,00 2,00 2,17 3,00 2,29 1,86 3,67 0,703

To reduce cost pressures of operation 4,00 4,00 3,50 2,67 3,38 3,67 3,50 2,25 2,83 0,604


…by country


Mean ra

nk score

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

Standard devia

tion

Local

authorit

y

Regional a

uthorit

y

Civil s

ociety orga

nisation

Centra

l gove

rnment in

stitu

tion

Publicly

owned enterp

rise

Local

developmen

t age

ncy

Private

business

Universi

ty

OtherSt.

deviation

To enable provision of new services 2,00 3,38 2,00 3,64 4,00 4,50 2,50 3,50 3,10 0,868

To enable the effective use of technological resources 2,60 4,00 3,57 2,00 2,75 5,00 3,86 3,75 0,948


4,75 3,50 3,20 4,00 4,00 5,00 3,67 2,83 0,736

To enhance innovation potential of the private sector 5,00 2,00 3,00 4,63 2,00 2,00 2,50 3,17 2,78 1,116


3,40 3,25 3,40 3,80 4,33 3,00 2,63 0,550

To improve the process of public policy design 3,50 2,20 3,75 3,67 1,50 2,75 3,00 0,832

To improve the quality and efficiency of public services 1,00 1,89 2,22 2,10 2,20 2,50 2,00 2,63 2,54 0,489


3,00 3,20 2,84 3,33 5,00 2,00 2,67 3,88 0,894

To influence public views and public behaviour 5,00 3,67 3,00 4,00 0,833

To meet public needs and expectations 3,00 3,00 2,17 2,08 1,00 2,50 2,50 2,25 1,00 0,737

To reduce cost pressures of operation 4,00 2,86 3,60 3,11 3,00 3,00 2,50 2,83 3,83 0,504

Standard deviation 1,581 0,817 0,924 0,740 1,040 1,173 1,254 0,485 0,863

…and by institution


Most relevant attributes of innovation – public sector vs. own organisation

• Overall, the relevant advantage over previous practices is seen as the most relevant across countries; hardly any difference between perceptions on the public sector as a whole compared to perception over own organisation

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

Overall

PS O PS O PS O PS O PS O PS O PS O PS O PS O PS O PS O

Compatibility with values and beliefs

3,00 2,00 3,40 3,20 3,08 3,85 3,47 3,25 3,50 3,00 3,21 3,40 4,50 4,25 3,04 3,13 3,44 4,00 3,33 3,50 3,77 3,68

Observability 3,50 4,00 4,00 3,75 3,62 4,25 3,93 3,75 4,00 4,00 4,05 4,29 4,75 5,00 4,08 4,00 3,80 4,30 4,00 4,50 4,16 4,32

Opportunity for cost-savings 4,00 3,00 4,40 4,00 4,43 4,25 4,13 4,19 4,50 4,50 3,90 4,19 4,25 5,00 4,27 4,23 4,30 4,44 4,67 4,50 4,32 4,43

Relative advantage to superceding idea/product/service

4,00 5,00 4,50 4,00 4,00 4,33 3,53 3,38 4,00 3,50 3,94 4,32 3,67 4,00 4,21 4,28 4,11 4,30 4,20 4,20 4,65 4,49

Trialability 1,50 3,00 3,50 3,25 3,33 4,09 3,07 3,13 4,50 4,50 3,20 3,60 4,00 4,25 3,24 3,42 3,50 3,60 3,40 3,67 3,77 3,92


Drivers of innovation• Organisational leadership and clear

commitments to supporting innovation are perceived as the most important drivers of innovation, along with supportive organisational culture

• Interestingly, EU-sourced project and directives are seen as the least significant innovation drivers – innovation is conceived locally!

Mean ra

nk score

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

St. devia

tion

Organisational leadership committed to innovation and change

2,30

An organisational culture, which promotes and awards new ideas

2,33

The presence of political impetus (a political will for change)

2,69

An adequate legislative framework 2,92

Financial performance 3,07

Knowledge (both technical and specific content) of staff

3,08

Citizens' demands 3,21

Presence of vibrant SMEs in the community 3,25

Ability/willingness of private investors to provide funding

3,50

Flexibility in operating with the authority's budget

3,68

The presence of a research/development/scientific unit or staff

3,72

Opportunities for international cooperation with similar authorities

3,82

Track record of good relationships with local stakeholders

3,94

EU-inspired projects/EU directives 4,00


Mean ra

nk score

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

St. devia

tion

Ability/willingness of private investors to provide funding

4,00 3,00 3,00 4,33 3,00 3,00 0,612

An adequate legislative framework 4,00 3,50 3,00 3,00 4,00 2,45 1,00 3,18 0,969

An organisational culture, which promotes and awards new ideas

2,00 1,60 2,70 3,10 1,50 1,88 1,33 2,41 2,50 2,60 0,586

Citizens' demands 3,50 3,33 3,33 3,14 3,25 2,83 0,228

EU-inspired projects/EU directives 4,00 5,00 4,00 5,00 2,25 5,00 5,00 1,028

Financial performance 4,00 2,29 5,00 3,40 3,83 2,40 1,00 1,329

Flexibility in operating with the authority's budget 5,00 1,00 2,86 3,50 5,00 5,00 4,14 3,50 3,60 1,292

Knowledge (both technical and specific content) of staff

3,00 4,50 2,60 2,44 3,00 3,08 3,33 3,45 3,00 3,50 0,570

Opportunities for international cooperation with similar authorities

4,00 3,00 3,67 3,86 4,00 4,00 5,00 0,591

Organisational leadership committed to innovation and change

1,50 1,75 2,33 2,33 4,00 2,71 2,67 1,95 3,25 2,00 0,747

Presence of vibrant SMEs in the community 5,00 2,29 5,00 4,00 4,50 3,33 2,33 4,00 1,076

The presence of a research/development/scientific unit or staff

4,50 4,43 2,33 3,00 4,00 4,50 5,00 0,953

The presence of political impetus (a political will for change)

2,00 3,50 4,00 2,17 1,50 3,71 2,00 2,25 2,60 3,20 0,851

Track record of good relationships with local stakeholders

5,00 2,00 4,50 3,00 4,40 3,33 4,00 1,033


Drivers of innovation

• In Poland, EU-projects and directives are ranked much higher than in the other countries

• In the UK, financial performance is the most critical driver

• Citizens’ demands seem to have similar impact on innovation across countries


Financial instruments for innovation


Financing innovation• EU sources and budget

allocations are the primary sources of financing for innovation for 2/3 of the organisations

• Private funding is the least likely to support innovation in the public sector

• The sum of all exceeds 100% as respondents were allowed to mark more than one option

Extern

al funding f

rom EU

source

s

Budget al

locations

Extern

al funding f

rom nati

onal public

source

s, such as

subsid

ies

Extern

al funding f

rom re

gional p

ublic source

s

Own reve

nue stre

ams

Extern

al funding f

rom lo

cal public

source

s

Extern

al funding f

rom priv

ate so

urces

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Agreement with the following statements

• Across all countries, utilisation of EU-level instruments is seen as a priority (perhaps the UK is an exception)

• In most countries, respondents seem to support separate budget items for innovation

• To most, public funds could also be used toward financing innovation

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

Local/regional authorities should have as their priority the utilization of EU-level innovative instruments (making local policies and measures benefiting from EU instruments)

4,50 4,00 3,50 4,38 4,50 4,29 5,00 4,08 3,78 3,00

The local/regional authority's budget should have a separate item for innovation (innovation budget)

4,50 4,00 3,60 3,56 4,50 3,89 5,00 3,64 4,10 2,83

It is very difficult to determine the effect of innovative financial instruments on the local/regional budget

4,50 4,00 3,46 4,00 4,00 3,13 3,25 2,75 3,22 3,80

Financial instruments for innovation should primarily be targeted at businesses (SMEs, industry)

4,50 3,25 3,36 2,80 3,50 3,47 3,50 3,67 3,89 2,83

The local/regional authority has no fiscal freedom to offer and/or manage any financial instrument to support innovation (i.e. fiscal planning is restricted by national legislation)

3,50 3,25 2,46 4,15 4,22 3,33 3,35 3,20 2,60

Financing innovation is a policy priority for the local and/or regional authority 3,50 3,25 3,36 3,77 2,50 3,42 3,33 3,04 4,10 2,60

In the past two years, the local/regional authority has been very successful in providing finance to innovation

3,00 3,50 2,57 3,08 3,00 2,39 2,50 2,50 2,89 2,40

Introducing new financial instruments to support innovation should NOT require public funds allocation

3,50 2,50 2,67 2,92 2,00 2,13 2,25 2,83 3,00 2,17


Public Procurement


Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

Before starting the tendering process, requirements of delivery and end-user readiness would have to be assessed accordingly

5,0 4,6 3,5 4,7 4,5 4,4 4,5 4,4 4,2 4,2

The procurement process is a systemic process, in which procurers and decision makers need to be aware of the implications of the resulting activities, possibilities and constraints in later stages of product integration/service implementation 4,0 4,6 3,7 4,2 4,0 4,4 4,8 3,9 4,1 4,0

Technology procurement may involve the creation of a new market niche 4,0 4,3 3,8 4,2 4,0 3,8 4,0 4,4 4,1 4,8

Procurement for innovation needs to be supported by designated policies, which are in addition to the "typical" public procurement regulations

4,5 3,3 3,2 3,7 4,5 3,9 4,8 3,6 3,8 4,6

Procuring innovative products/services/solutions has an additional level of risk compared to a "typical" tender

4,0 4,2 3,5 3,1 4,5 4,1 3,5 3,2 3,9 4,7

Little has changed in the way public tenders are managed over the past two years 2,5 4,3 4,2 3,3 4,0 4,2 5,0 3,8 3,2 4,0

Procurement is a sustainable way to start public-private partnerships 4,0 3,8 3,2 3,6 4,5 3,1 4,5 4,0 3,8 4,0

The use of public procurement can be of significant importance in creating competitive advantage for the private sector

3,5 3,8 3,2 3,1 4,5 3,9 3,8 3,8 4,1 4,3

Public procurement of innovations has heavier requirements for interaction between procurers and potential suppliers than does 'regular' public procurement

3,0 4,2 3,6 3,3 4,0 3,7 3,3 4,2 4,0 4,2

Suppliers are additionally required to comply with a broader set of public goals (such as special waste regulations, use of recycled materials, etc.) targeted at developing specific public awareness on new issues 2,5 3,3 3,3 4,3 4,0 2,9 4,5 3,8 4,1 4,8

Tenders aimed at innovative service/product need their own separate rules, in addition to the public procurement rules applied generally

4,5 3,4 3,3 3,8 4,0 3,6 4,3 3,1 3,6 3,2

Purchasing by public sector actors is directed not only towards fulfilling their own tasks, but also aims to influence and support certain patt erns of demand by private consumers

3,5 4,6 3,2 2,8 3,5 3,5 4,0 3,7 4,0 3,6

The local/regional authority prefers a long-term partnership with suppliers to public tenders for the same kind of service/product done on a regular basis

3,0 4,2 3,0 2,8 2,5 3,3 4,5 4,0 3,6 3,3

Public-private partnerships are the most successful drivers of innovation in the region 2,5 3,6 3,2 3,8 2,5 3,4 3,5 3,9 3,5 3,6

Public procurement is the strongest instrument public authorities have to encourage innovation in the private sector

4,0 3,2 3,3 2,6 2,5 2,5 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,8

The staff responsible for public tenders should also be responsible for innovation planning 3,0 3,8 2,9 2,8 4,0 3,1 3,0 3,4 2,6 3,3

Innovation is among the key criteria used in determining the winning offer in a public tender 2,0 3,5 2,8 3,4 3,0 1,9 3,0 2,9 2,2 2,4

The local/regional authority uses procurement as an (enabling) instrument in stimulating private sector innovation

2,0 3,2 2,8 2,3 2,5 2,2 2,8 2,6 2,6 2,7

Innovation in procurement


Innovation in procurement

• Based on the previous chart:– Public procurement is not regularly used to stimulate

innovation in any of the countries– At the same time, in some countries it is seen as a strong

instrument that COULD be used to encourage innovation (i.e. policy design?)

– Innovation is seldom used as a criterion in public tenders– In most countries little has changed in the way public

tenders are organised


Publicly owned enterprises


POEs and innovation

• Most countries do not see innovation in POEs as necessarily having a higher public value than that in the private sector

• However, almost uniformly across countries, respondents agree that POE revenues can be used towards public service delivery

Revenue from POEs can be used to improve the quality and diversity of public services

5,0 4,0 3,6 4,4 4,0 3,5 4,0 4,3 4,3 4,0

POEs are an instrument for the public authorities to apply "regulative" measures to the market

3,0 1,7 3,1 3,5 5,0 2,7 3,3 3,0 3,3 3,0

POEs have a higher level of freedom than their public sector principals in planning and implementing innovation

2,5 2,8 2,9 3,6 2,0 3,3 3,0 3,6 3,4 4,0

Publicly-owned enterprises are the same as privately-run businesses in terms of innovation performance

3,0 2,7 2,8 3,4 2,0 2,8 2,5 2,3 3,5 3,0

POEs should only be performing public services 3,0 2,0 3,3 2,7 3,5 3,3 1,8 2,6 3,1 2,2

Innovation in POEs always has higher public value than innovation in the rest of the private sector

2,0 2,6 2,7 2,8 1,0 2,4 3,3 2,6 1,4 2,2

POEs represent the only viable option for the public sector to encourage innovation performance

2,0 1,7 2,2 2,4 1,5 2,4 1,5 2,1 2,0 1,8


Civil society inclusion


Involving civil society

• Nearly every kind of organisation involves citizens in public debates

Public debates about the delivery of public services (especially when innovations are involved)

26 5 6 2 1 2 6 7 0

Providing expertise in policy, organisational or strategic planning

13 6 7 2 4 0 6 9 2

Outsourced services to beneficiaries (under the supervision of the organisation)

10 5 5 0 2 0 3 4 2

Direct participation in city council meetings 17 2 2 0 0 2 4 2 1

Other 10 0 3 0 3 2 0 1 0

None 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2


Innovation and civil society

• The added public value of innovation in the public sector is not contested in any country

• In the majority of cases, no special funds exist to support innovation by civil society organisations

Bulgaria

Estonia

Finland

Italy

Netherl

ands

Poland

Romania

Spain

Swed

en

United Kingd

om

Public sector innovation is to the benefit of all civil society, not just the business sector

4,0 4,8 3,9 4,2 4,5 4,2 4,8 4,5 4,3 4,3

Civil society organisations need to bear at least part of the risk when an innovation is introduced

2,5 3,3 3,4 3,3 4,0 3,7 4,0 3,5 3,3 3,5

The local/regional public authority frequently consults experts from civil society organisations with regard to innovation planning and performance 2,5 3,6 3,2 3,4 3,5 3,4 3,5 2,9 3,2 3,3

The local/regional public authority cooperates with civil society in joint initiatives to produce innovation together

2,0 3,8 3,4 3,3 2,0 3,2 4,0 3,0 3,1 3,5

Social enterprises are a civil society actor with a growing importance for innovation in the public sector

3,0 4,2 3,2 2,8 1,0 3,1 2,5 3,7 3,1 4,0

The local/regional authority always welcomes contributions from civil society actors when it comes to innovation planning/discussion

2,5 2,8 3,1 3,1 2,0 3,6 3,3 3,2 2,8 3,5

The local/public authority operates at least one special fund providing financing to innovation by civil society organisations

1,0 3,0 3,0 2,8 2,5 2,9 3,8 2,5 2,6 2,7


Instead of a conclusion…


Responses by Sunday, Sep 30

• Remember, the data shown here were based on a total of 107 responses, as obtained on Monday, September 24th; they are NOT representative

• But on Sunday – already 134, so 27 completed within just a week• 17 of the 27 come from Bulgaria; 5 come from Spain, 4 from

Estonia, 1 from the UK• We need another round of invites from everyone – send the link to

associations of municipalities, or other structures that you could use as “proxies”

• Put the link on a visible place in your web sites• We cannot directly tie population size to desired number of

responses since we are not surveying citizens


Thank you!Zoya Damianova, Programme Director

[email protected]

Ventseslav Kozarev, Project [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

state-of-the-art questionnaire

Documents

arc fund

countriesdrawings courtesy

number of respondents

picture courtesy of

educated respondents

final analysis meanings

number of completed

final results