Thanks for the original and fresh analysis. You describe eloquently the way in which the monopoly and constitutional characteristics of public agencies make them inherently unsuitable for innovation. However they can buy innovation from outside of government from entities who can achieve change at lower cost and complexity. Buying it from outside is not an admission of defeat - it's honest self awareness of the issues that you outline. A public agency that knows its own limitations is smart enough to know the potential of outside innovators to support their purpose. The one thing public agencies are obliged to get good at as smart use of their necessary monopoly funding function in the interests of the taxpayer and the public. Too many agencies aren't that good at using their funding smartly for innovation.
Thanks Bil! I agree the "buying in" idea has recently been demonised for no good reason. It's still a paradox to me how on the one hand, the monopoly position of the public sector should - technically - be a position of considerable power, while on the other hand decision-makers seem to see themselves are quite constricted. I haven't gotten to the bottom of that yet. Having been both on the inside and the outside innovator, it's most powerful when both sides collaborate very actively on negotiating what innovation is possible, and how a good idea can be fiercly protected on 're-entry' into the atmosphere. But that seems to rely heavily on the skill and influence of individuals, making it a fragile affair.
Another excellent post Annika. I'm afraid that I'm kind of in the camp that sees innovation projects as doomed to fail - despite really want them to succeed. Some experiences that might explain my thinking:
The innovation team coming in from 'the outside' and not engaging with the front line to understand their reality. That's not their fault, it's the fault of leadership who don't prepare the ground for them properly. To be fair I've also seen it done really well, with innovation being a central part of a redesign.
Another experience is leadership not putting boundaries around the innovation exercise. The brief has been 'go innovate' rather than 'go innovate about X process or activity'. That led to great ideas that would have cost more than the organisation could afford - and ultimately to disillusionment.
The third one was a pure 'PR' exercise - where the innovation was controlled to come up with ideas the organisation was already doing, so they could say they were being innovative and doing things for customers. Enough said!
Thanks Joss, I can totally relate to those examples. Like I said in my comment to Bill, the interplay between how the ground is being prepared internally, and how humble and realistic an outside team interprets their remit has a huge impact on the chance of innovation survival. I've been in teams where everyone distrusted the "outsiders" and went into passive resistance, and I've seen agents come in and address people as if they were thought they were clueless idiots. Even if the systemic guardrails were improved, there are cultural barriers to be negotiated that may well be habitualised by now...
Thanks for the original and fresh analysis. You describe eloquently the way in which the monopoly and constitutional characteristics of public agencies make them inherently unsuitable for innovation. However they can buy innovation from outside of government from entities who can achieve change at lower cost and complexity. Buying it from outside is not an admission of defeat - it's honest self awareness of the issues that you outline. A public agency that knows its own limitations is smart enough to know the potential of outside innovators to support their purpose. The one thing public agencies are obliged to get good at as smart use of their necessary monopoly funding function in the interests of the taxpayer and the public. Too many agencies aren't that good at using their funding smartly for innovation.
Thanks Bil! I agree the "buying in" idea has recently been demonised for no good reason. It's still a paradox to me how on the one hand, the monopoly position of the public sector should - technically - be a position of considerable power, while on the other hand decision-makers seem to see themselves are quite constricted. I haven't gotten to the bottom of that yet. Having been both on the inside and the outside innovator, it's most powerful when both sides collaborate very actively on negotiating what innovation is possible, and how a good idea can be fiercly protected on 're-entry' into the atmosphere. But that seems to rely heavily on the skill and influence of individuals, making it a fragile affair.
Another excellent post Annika. I'm afraid that I'm kind of in the camp that sees innovation projects as doomed to fail - despite really want them to succeed. Some experiences that might explain my thinking:
The innovation team coming in from 'the outside' and not engaging with the front line to understand their reality. That's not their fault, it's the fault of leadership who don't prepare the ground for them properly. To be fair I've also seen it done really well, with innovation being a central part of a redesign.
Another experience is leadership not putting boundaries around the innovation exercise. The brief has been 'go innovate' rather than 'go innovate about X process or activity'. That led to great ideas that would have cost more than the organisation could afford - and ultimately to disillusionment.
The third one was a pure 'PR' exercise - where the innovation was controlled to come up with ideas the organisation was already doing, so they could say they were being innovative and doing things for customers. Enough said!
Ultimately it comes down to agency leadership.
Thanks Joss, I can totally relate to those examples. Like I said in my comment to Bill, the interplay between how the ground is being prepared internally, and how humble and realistic an outside team interprets their remit has a huge impact on the chance of innovation survival. I've been in teams where everyone distrusted the "outsiders" and went into passive resistance, and I've seen agents come in and address people as if they were thought they were clueless idiots. Even if the systemic guardrails were improved, there are cultural barriers to be negotiated that may well be habitualised by now...
Yes! I've seen both those too, and t.b.h. been somewhat guilty of both behaviours at times.
I can only write about this because I have been too. It's very tricky to act outside of that system