Search results

AbstractRecent innovation research in the public sector demonstrates the advantages of collaborative innovation, but also recognizes the complex character of collaborative innovation processes. These complexities might both stimulate and hinder collaborative innovation. Through a qualitative comparative analysis of empirical data from 19 public–private innovation partnerships (PPIs) in five European Countries, we show how particular types of complexity leadership (i.e., generative leadership and administrative leadership) act on these complexities in PPIs to produce highly innovative services. The results show that small partnerships use generative leadership in the presence of network complexities, and administrative leadership in the absence of network complexities to produce highly innovative services. However, large partnerships only use generative leadership, while abandoning administrative leadership, to produce highly innovative services. These findings bring about theoretical and practical insights as to how various forms of complexity leadership might be employed in varying contexts of partnership complexity.

AbstractInnovation in public services is propelled by collaborations between public actors, private actors, and service users. A substantial literature has centered on the benefits of user involvement in public services, but how user involvement can stimulate collaborative innovation is still largely unknown. This article develops and tests a theoretical framework based on the combined effect of (1) the empowerment of users, (2) specialized knowledge of the users, and (3) the absence of hindering rules and procedures. Data from 19 public–private eHealth collaborations in five European countries, collected through 132 interviews and 124 surveys, are analyzed through fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, and the results indicate that innovation in these partnerships is influenced by the combined effect of these conditions, but that this combined effect is also contingent on the roles the users adopt in the innovation process.

Les études sur l'innovation dans le secteur public n'ont pas encore exploré de manière systématique la manière dont le contexte cible (ou la phase de production) des innovations influe sur les premières phases des processus d'innovation. Cette étude théorise et vérifie si les organisations innovantes sont plus sensibles aux idées de certains groupes de parties prenantes en fonction du groupe cible de l'innovation concernée. Sur la base d'un ensemble de données à grande échelle provenant de la fonction publique australienne, les résultats montrent que les innovations destinées à des groupes cibles externes sont plus susceptibles d'être fondées sur des idées émanant de parties prenantes externes (par rapport aux parties prenantes internes) et – au sein du groupe des parties prenantes internes – sur des idées émanant de cadres (par rapport aux employés non cadres). Les implications pratiques et scientifiques sont discutées. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Les innovations profitent de l'intégration des idées des parties prenantes internes et externes, à la fois sur le fond (des connaissances appropriées conduisent à de meilleurs produits finaux) et sur le plan symbolique (les innovations doivent être considérées comme légitimes et recevoir le soutien des acteurs qui seront les premiers concernés par l'innovation). Les organisations innovantes doivent être conscientes des perceptions des parties prenantes concernées par l'innovation, et bien percevoir, saisir et traduire les idées de ces parties prenantes dans le processus d'innovation.

Public sector innovation scholarship has not yet systematically explored how the target context (or output phase) of innovations impacts the early phases of innovation processes. This study theorizes and tests whether innovating organizations are more sensitive to ideas from particular stakeholder groups depending on the target group of said innovation. Using a large-scale dataset from the Australian Public Service, the results show that innovations with external target groups are more likely to be built on ideas from external stakeholders (compared with internal stakeholders) and—within the group of internal stakeholders—on ideas from managers (compared with non-managerial employees). Practical and scholarly implications are discussed.Points for practitioners: Innovations benefit from the inclusion of internal and external stakeholder ideas, both substantively (appropriate knowledge leads to better end products) and symbolically (innovations need to be deemed legitimate, and receive support from the actors that will be primarily impacted by the innovation). Innovating organizations need to be aware of the perceptions of the stakeholders affected by the innovation, and properly sense, capture and translate the ideas of those stakeholders in the innovation process.

Public service innovation involves a process of creative exploration of new ideas, knowledge and perspectives. The article poses that creative exploration emerges from the combination of a climate for creativity that is active inside the organization, and collaborations with diverse actors that are present outside the organization. We test the effect of these conditions on innovation using data from the Australian Public Service. Our findings demonstrate that both a climate for creativity and collaborative diversity are positively related to innovation, yet a tipping point exists at which the positive effects of collaborative diversity on innovation turn negative.

Involving users in innovating public services is an increasingly common, but challenging practice, as users often have different viewpoints on their own role in the process. Particularly in complex innovation arrangements such as public-private collaborations, governments and service innovators need to be aware of users' perceptions of their involvement to maximally exploit the advantages of including them. This article theorizes and tests four different roles of user-provider interaction on co-innovation processes: users as (1) legitimators, (2) customers, (3) partners, and (4) self-organizers. These theoretical roles are tested through Q-methodology on service users in 19 public-private eHealth collaborations from five European countries. Our findings suggest the existence of three hybrid empirical profiles of user involvement: (1) users as 'service consultants', (2) users as 'co-designers', and (3) users as 'hands-off supporters'. The discovery of these profiles suggests the existence of different viewpoints on user involvement, which can influence the expectations and behavior of the users in innovation processes.

AbstractThis article examines the impact of partnership design on technological innovation in public‐private innovation partnerships. It develops two competing hypotheses on how specific partnership characteristics lead to innovation in health care services. The study compares 19 eHealth partnerships across five European countries and uses fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis to test the hypotheses. The findings show that small, centralized, and homogeneous partnerships are most successful at achieving technological innovation. The study highlights the importance of partnership design in spurring innovation and calls for a reconsideration of some of the underlying assumptions of collaborative innovation theory.