Concepts, Methods and ResultsConcepts, Methods and Results

Presented by the U of Haifa TeamPresented by the U of Haifa Team

Brussels, 2005Brussels, 2005

PUBLIN WP 3

Innovation in the Public Sector

The European Commission University of HaifaINNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

Dr. Eran Vigoda-Gadot

Dr. Aviv Shoham

Dr. Ayalla Ruvio

Dr. Nitza Schwabsky

w/ extracts by all of the team members.

We thank Tali Birman, Meirav Shoham, Itai Beeri and Shlomit Hillel for their help.

Presentation prepared and presented by Dr. Nitza Schwabsky

InnovationInnovation ““new ways of doing thingsnew ways of doing things at the level of at the level of

institutions”. institutions”.

““A deliberate change of behaviourA deliberate change of behaviour that that maymay lead to a new or improved servicelead to a new or improved service, process, , process, technology, administrative tool or way of technology, administrative tool or way of organizing activities” organizing activities”

InnovativenessInnovativenessOrganizational Organizational openness:openness:

to new ideasto new ideas and practices and practices

to the organizational to the organizational capacity to capacity to implementimplement new ideas new ideas (Garcia and Calantone, 2002; (Garcia and Calantone, 2002;

Hurley and Hult, 1998; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek, 1973).Hurley and Hult, 1998; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek, 1973).

"is an "is an enduring traitenduring trait that is consistently that is consistently exhibited by innovative firms over a exhibited by innovative firms over a period of time"period of time" (Subramanian, 1996, p. 223).(Subramanian, 1996, p. 223).

Innovation / Public Innovation / Public SectorSector

Research Model:Research Model:

Managers

End-Users

OutcomesInnovativenessAntecedents

+

Research Model: Research Model: Managers Managers & Frontline Employees& Frontline Employees

Outcomes:Inn. performanceOrg. performanceInd. & org. CommitmentSatisfaction

Innovativeness:OpennessRisk-takingFuture orientation Creativity Proavtiveness

Antecedents:Inf. generation Inf. disseminationResponsiveness Team SpiritInternal PoliticsConnectednessCentralization[Learning]

Learning

Research Model: Research Model: End-UsersEnd-Users

Outcomes:ImageSatisfactionTrust in

institutions

Innovativeness:InnovationInnovativeness

Antecedents:ConnectednessEmp. ProfessionalsmEthics & MoralityInternal PoliticsPromoters/innov.Leadership/VisionResponsiveness

Compared with the Managers’ studyCompared with the Managers’ study--Some constructs were excluded; Fewer variablesSome constructs were excluded; Fewer variablesThis might lead to the increase of measurement errorThis might lead to the increase of measurement error..

Research Model: Research Model: Managers in-depth Managers in-depth

interviews [How interviews [How examined?]examined?]

OutcomesExpected consequencesUnexpected cons.Performance measurement criteria

InnovativenessDefinitionsExamplesFacilitators of innovationsObstacles to inn.

Antecedents:Needs that innovations address Initiators / innovation Beneficiaries of inn.

Learning

Validation:Validation: • A A Pilot StudyPilot Study with 117 Public practitioners/ with 117 Public practitioners/

studentsstudents

• A A Comprehensive InterviewComprehensive Interview with one senior with one senior Israeli manager from the health system.Israeli manager from the health system.

Tools for WP3Tools for WP3Established measures from Established measures from

relevant literature; Interdisciplinaryrelevant literature; Interdisciplinary

Managers

End-Users

Surveys Survey

s

Interviews

Health Soc.Ser

Data Collected - SummaryCountryCountrySectorSectorManagers / EmployeesManagers / EmployeesEnd UsersEnd UsersInterviewsInterviews

IrelandIrelandHealthHealth20/5020/50118/220118/2201515

IsraelIsraelHealthHealth139/221139/221103/140103/1401515

Social ServicesSocial Services137/160137/160

LithuaniaLithuaniaSocial ServicesSocial Services221/300221/30068/12068/1201515

NetherlandsNetherlandsCombinationCombination51/39051/39020/15020/1503838

NorwayNorwaySocial ServicesSocial Services243/647243/647121/225121/2251717

SlovakiaSlovakiaSocial ServicesSocial Services204/295204/29581811818

SpainSpainHealthHealth154/500154/50072/12072/1201414

SwedenSwedenHealthHealth142/970142/97043/8143/811515

UKUKHealthHealth15/35015/350--1616

TotalTotal1326/38831326/3883626626163163

Managers and Managers and Frontline Employees:Frontline Employees:

ResultsResults

Managers & Frontline Managers & Frontline Employees Employees

Combined ResultsCombined Results

Distributed:Distributed: 38833883

Responses:Responses: 13261326

Response rate:Response rate: 34.2%34.2%

For all participating countries and all sectors

Managers: PopulationManagers: Population

31%

69%

Males

Females

58%42%

Health

SocialServices

Sector

21.7

45.2

33.1

Managers

FrontlineEmployeesOther

Position

Age:

M=42; s.d.= 11.04

Education:M=15; s.d.=6.32

Gender

35.4

71.3

40.338.6 38.9 38.6

71.326

21.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Combined Health S. Service

HighMed

Low

%

Top managers favor emphasis on being innovators

Health:

n=460

M=2.0

S.d.=.78

Soc. Ser:

n=780

M=2.1

S.d.=.76

48.844.2

53.5

30.5 30.3 29.471.3

20.717

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Combined Health S. Service

HighMed

Low

%

We have introduced many new services during the past

3 years

%

Health:

n=459

M=2.1

S.d.=.81

Soc. Ser:

n=781

M=2.3

S.d.=.75

20.7

28.6

15.9

27.531

25.8

71.3

51.9

58.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Combined Health S. Service

HighMed

Low%

Changes in our services have been mostly minor over the past

3 years

%

Health:

n=458

M=1.9

S.d.=.82

Soc. Ser:

n=786

M=1.6

S.d.=.75

Innovativeness - Innovativeness - ManagersManagers

# of itemsMeanS.d.Rel.

Innovativeness at the Organization

63.4.7.86

# of items Mean Sd Reliability Comments

Antecedents

Information generation 5 3.40 0.79 .68 Reverse 4,5

Information dissemination 4 3.50 0.94 .79

Responsiveness 5 3.66 0.81 .75 Reverse 1-3

Team spirit 4 3.39 0.86 .81

Internal politics 4 2.58 0.97 .82

Connectedness 4 3.99 0.85 .77

Centralization 4 2.52 1.00 .73 w/o 2

Outcomes

Inno' performance - plans 4 3.49 0.82 .88

Inno' performance - lead' 4 3.25 0.82 .90

Inno' performance - users 4 3.28 0.89 .85

Performance - plans 4 3.82 0.74 .87

Performance - leadership 4 3.53 0.79 .90

Performance - users 4 3.59 0.85 .92

Commitment 4 3.99 0.84 .83

Work satisfaction 5 3.52 0.74 .76

Manager/Front Line Employee Results

Combined Results

Highest

2nd highest

LowestReliability: higher than recommended .07 (Nunnally, 1978)

Combined

Results

# of items Mean Sd Reliability Comments

Innovativeness

Openness 4 3.55 0.92 .86

Risk taking 4 2.91 0.90 .72 w/o 4

Future orientation 4 3.32 1.00 .89

Creativity 5 3.76 0.85 .88

Proactiveness 4 3.45 0.82 .81

Innovativeness 3 3.43 0.97 .67 w/o 1

Learning Orientation

Innovations - managers 6 3.61 0.87 .91

Innovations - employees 6 3.61 0.76 .82

Innovations - external 6 3.29 0.95 .92

Learning organization 7 3.96 0.77 .81 w/o 7

Learn – geared towards 7 3.65 0.83 .86

Learn - impact 7 3.82 0.83 .81

Highest

2nd highest

Lowest

Correlation matrix – Part A / Correlation matrix – Part A /

ExampleExample Variable# Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Information Generation

3.40 0.79 1

2. Information Dissemination

3.50 0.94 .57** 1

3. Responsiveness 3.66 0.81 .60** .61** 1

4. Team Spirit 3.39 0.86 .31** .33** .23** 1

5. Internal Politics 2.58 0.97 -.34** -.32** -.44** -.34** 1

6. Connectedness 3.99 0.85 .37** .41** .40** .38** -.41** 1

7. Centralization 2.52 1.00 -.24** -.20** -.37** -.10** .54** -.33** 1

8. Inno' performance - plans

3.49 0.82 .37** .48** .47** .28** -.31** .38** -.21** 1

9. Inno' performance - lead'

3.25 0.82 .29** .39** .35** .17** -.24** .26** -.15** .64** 1

10. Inno' performance - users

3.28 0.89 .41** .47** .45** .27** -.32** .36** -.19** .70** .57** 1

11.Performance – 3 year plans

3.82 0.74 .45** .43** .41** .42** -.36** .44** -.20** .51** .33** .46** 1

12. Performance – Pol. Leadership

3.53 0.79 .32** .35** .35** .30** -.29** .35** -.14** .42** .51** .42** .66** 1

13. Performance - Clients 3.59 0.85 .42** .41** .39** .43** -.36** .42** -.18** .46** .35** .57** .72** .63** 1

*p<.05 ** p<.01

CorrelationsCorrelations – Key Results – Key Results

Probably an adverse effect on org. innovativeness

AntecedentsAntecedents

InnovativenessInnovativeness

CentralizationCentralizationSig. due to sample Sig. due to sample

sizesize

Mostly moderateMostly moderate(r=.4 & r=.5).(r=.4 & r=.5).

Low HighModerate

InnovativenessInnovativeness AntecedentsAntecedentsRisk-takingRisk-taking & &

general general innovativenessinnovativeness - -

weakerweaker

[also in many individual [also in many individual country samples].country samples].

Internal politics &

centralization negatively

related

InnovativenessInnovativeness

OutcomesOutcomes

Risk-takingRisk-taking the-weakestthe-weakest (all (all but one but one under .4under .4, and , and

several under .3)several under .3)..

MostlyMostly moderatemoderate (r=.35 to r=.6)(r=.35 to r=.6)

Low HighModerate

OutcomesOutcomes InnovativenessInnovativeness

CreativityCreativity --StrongestStrongest

relationships with relationships with most outcomes (all most outcomes (all

but one but one over .4over .4))

CommitmentCommitment - stronger- stronger associations than other outcomes; associations than other outcomes; (r=.5 and more)(r=.5 and more)

InnovativenessInnovativeness LearningLearning

ExceptionsExceptions::

““innovations – innovations – clientsclients””

r=.2 to r=.3r=.2 to r=.3

ModerateModerate to strongto strong Relationships w/ mostRelationships w/ most

Low HighModerate

Particularly: Particularly: “innovations – managers”“innovations – managers” and and learning orientationlearning orientation (r =.42 to r =.69). (r =.42 to r =.69).

General innovativenessGeneral innovativeness and and risk-takingrisk-taking the the weakestweakest

correlations to learningcorrelations to learning . .

Also Also weakerweaker in relation to in relation to

outcomes and antecedentsoutcomes and antecedents,, -- --less prominent than other less prominent than other

innovativeness measuresinnovativeness measures . .

Openness – Strongest:.5 & .6

LearningLearning

InnovativenessInnovativenessLow HighModerate

Learning Learning Effectiveness Effectiveness – Extremely – Extremely week week [r=.2 and [r=.2 and lower- sig. due lower- sig. due /sample size; ns in /sample size; ns in countries]countries]

Moderate Moderate to strongto strong

End-Users: ResultsEnd-Users: Results

End-UsersEnd-UsersCombined ResultsCombined Results

Distributed:Distributed: Over 1137Over 1137

Responses:Responses: 626626

Response rate:Response rate: less than 55%less than 55%[no figure for distributed in Slovakia][no figure for distributed in Slovakia]

For all participating countries and all sectors

End-Users: PopulationEnd-Users: Population

64.3%

35.7%Males

Females

61%39%

ThirdSector

PublicSector

Sector

33%

39%

28%BelowAverage

Avarage

AboveAverage

Income

Age:

M=45.5; s.d.= 16.96

Education:M=15.6; s.d.=3.94

Gender

43.9

22.5

21.3

9.7

2.6Other

Reduced Costs

PersonalizedService

BetterCommunication

BetterCoordination &Collaboration w/

Other orgs.

Major challenge

s to Innovation in the Public Sector

%

%

%

%

%

4

10.4

14.4

33.6

37.6

Other

Power ofSpecialists

Employees'lack of

motivation

Red Tape

TightBudget

Major Barrier to Innovation in the Public Sector

%

%

%

%

%

Innovativeness – End-Innovativeness – End-UsersUsers

# of itemsMeanSdRel.Comments

Innovativeness at the Organization

83.19.71.83w/o 1,7,8

Variables # of items Mean Sd Rel. Comments

Antecedents Connectedness 2 2.87 .83 .62

Employee's professionalism 2 3.49 .86 .77

Ethics and morality 3 3.21 .89 .73 w/o 3

Internal Politics 3 3.04 1.03 .68 w/o 3

Promoters of innovation 8 3.26 .86 .90

Public sector Leadership/ vision

2 2.87 .93 .80

Responsiveness 3 2.52 1.03 .52 w/o 3 (with 3 =.58)

Innovation Innovation 2 2.58 .76 .15 Reverse 2

Innovativeness at the organization

8 3.19 .71 .83 w/o 1,7,8

Innovativeness 5 2.80 .92 .68 w/o 2,4,5

Consequences Image 3 3.46 .95 .72 w/o 3

Satisfaction from Services 6 2.95 .57 .71

Trust in Institutions 8 2.85 .60 .79 w/4

Highest

2nd highest

Lowest

Combined Results

Reliability: higher than recommended .07 (Nunnally, 1978)

Correlation matrix (Cronbach-Alpha in parentheses)Correlation matrix (Cronbach-Alpha in parentheses) Variable# Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Innovativeness (at the organization)

3.19 .71 (83.)

2. Innovativeness 2.80 .92 **28. (67.)

3. Promoters of innovation

3.26 .86 **24. . **44 (90.)

4. Internal Politics 3.04 1.03 *09.- 07.- *09.- (68.)

5. Image 3.46 .95 *10. **19. **24. 03. (72.)

6. Employee's professionalism

3.49 .86 *08. *10. **17. **29.- **30. (77.)

7. Public sector Leadership/vision

2.87 .93 **17. **31. **29. *12.- **37. **35. (80.)

8. Responsiveness 2.52 1.03 05. **32. **26. *12.- **30. **27. **40. (52.)

9. Ethics and morality

2.58 .76 *08. **14. *13. **25.- **25. **52. **41. **30. (73.)

10. Connectedness 3.21 .89 *12. **35. **30. **16.- **31. **38. **45. **43. **45. (62.)

11. Satisfaction from Service

2.87 .83 **17. **33. **23. **18.- **28. **38. **43. **37. **38. **44. (71.)

12. Trust in Institution

2.95 .57 *11. **18. **18. **24.- **30. **45. **39. **32. **47. **39. **70. (79.)

N=592-620; * p<.05 ** p<.01

Correlations:Correlations:

Majority – of significant relationships. Majority – of significant relationships.

Correlation matrixCorrelation matrix

InnovativenessInnovativeness AntecedentsAntecedents

OutcomesOutcomes

responsivenessresponsiveness and and internal politicsinternal politics – – No No Significant Relationships, or Significant Relationships, or negatively negatively related; related;

True for the individual countries too.True for the individual countries too.

CorrelationsCorrelations – Key Results – Key Results

only weakly correlatedonly weakly correlated

(r =.24 and less)(r =.24 and less)

In-Depth Interviews with In-Depth Interviews with Managers & Frontline Managers & Frontline

EmployeesEmployees

OutcomesInnovativenessAntecedents

Initiation

Implementation

Diffusion

Inductive Content Inductive Content AnalysisAnalysisTwo phases:Two phases:

Phase 1:Phase 1:

‘‘National’ – each country on its ownNational’ – each country on its own Summary reports preparedSummary reports prepared

In-Depth Interviews with In-Depth Interviews with Managers & Frontline Managers & Frontline

EmployeesEmployees

A A cross-sectionalcross-sectional “cross-national” “cross-national” analysis of each of the research analysis of each of the research questionsquestions. .

Validation:Validation: by researchers' judgement by researchers' judgement Research Partner teams were asked to Research Partner teams were asked to

make comments. make comments.

Phase 2 of AnalysisPhase 2 of Analysis

InnovativenessInnovativeness

DefinitionDefinitionss

Newness

Change

Purpose

Improvement

•New Service•Improved service•Processes•Administrative•Conceptual•Systemic / structural•Technological•Professional•Complementary•Policy driven•Cultural•Attitudinal•Grass-Root

Increased Efficiency

Improved Services

Learning

Enhanced

Progress

INNOVATION

Antecedents

Needs and DemandsNeeds and Demands that innovations that innovations

addressaddress

Whose Whose Needs are Needs are AddressedAddressed

?? ClientsClients Managers and Managers and

AdministrationAdministration EmployeesEmployees OrganizationOrganization

Clients [?!] Staff [?!] Managers

Who are the Who are the BeneficiariesBeneficiaries

??

Human Forces: Human Forces: Political ‘Gains & Losses’Political ‘Gains & Losses’

Clients:Efficient serviceLow initiation

Some are open to new ideas / Complain

Improved quality/ service & life, satisfaction? /

Primary?

ManagementSearch for new waysHigh initiation [1]:

create, test, administer, recruit.

Personal traits/ leadership Lack of

leadershipImproved

management, efficiency, image.

Primary? Needs/ DemandsInitiationFacilitatorsObstaclesBenefits

Employees & PractitionersKnowledge & skills

Initiation [2]: bring ideas, prepare projects

Facilitate agree w/ ideas- motivated, committed /

older, feel at stake, know it all already, “why change”?

Improved conditions, affectivity, satisfaction,

motivation

PoliticiansOften initiate-

policy-driven, ‘feel the pulse’

Facilitate w/ new ideas, set targets,

lobby

EU & Outside Org.

Initiate w/ ideas and funding

w/Policy objectives, goals,

standards

1

2

4

3

5

Organizational Forces:Organizational Forces:

TargetFacilitating forces Obstacle

sOrganizational Characteristics

Culture & Politics

Learning Environme

nt

Tradition & Rigidity

Progress Orientation

Internal & External Politics

Climate for Innovation

Poor Organizational Learning

SupportiveOrganizational Learning

Initiation

Implementation

Diffusion

OutcomOutcomeses

Mostly positive

Intended Consequences

•Service improvement

•Equitable allocation of funds;

•Increase of quality of care; safety; economy; information transfer

•Efficient use of resources & productivity

•Reduced (medical) risks

•Flexibility for patients,

•Professionalism

OutcomOutcomeses

Unintended Consequences

Positive•Success in service

provision, speed [fast improvement], performance & reputation [i.e., increase no. of surgeries]

•Administrative- clinic more attractive to work at

•Additional resources- increase income

•Professionals have become more visible

•Variety of solutions

•Identified inefficiencies of the old system

•Impetus for further innovation

•Learning

OutcomOutcomeses

Unintended ConsequencesNegativ

e•Busier workload [i.e., Takes more time to fill-in journals]

•Difficulty for employees to perform a new job

•Resistance from citizens and employees + conflicts

•Increased administration

•Increase in employee turn-over rates

•Negative competition

•Time pressure

•Risk of losing [emp.] competence

•Ministry- detached from the field

Performance Measurement Performance Measurement CriteriaCriteria

Evaluation - importantEvaluation - important Little to none!!!Little to none!!! Often based on impressions & Often based on impressions &

“soft” information.“soft” information. Based on reputation & Based on reputation &

visibilityvisibility No real criteriaNo real criteria Difficult to measureDifficult to measure

Structured & routine Lack of measuring criteria

When done:When done:

No. of received No. of received care; complaints; care; complaints;

Quality, safety, Quality, safety, efficiency, efficiency, satisfaction, waiting satisfaction, waiting listslists

Conclusion: Conclusion: ManagersManagers

Data provides strong support of the Data provides strong support of the theoretical modeltheoretical model [combined & for each [combined & for each country]country]

A high proportion of variance should be A high proportion of variance should be explained by the full set of model variable explained by the full set of model variable combinationcombination

Antecedents Innovativeness Outcomes

Conclusion: Conclusion: End-User End-User Rep.Rep.

End-users End-users do not perceive the public sector do not perceive the public sector highly innovativehighly innovative

Internal politicsInternal politics was not perceived obstacle was not perceived obstacle Third sector managers are not as Third sector managers are not as

knowledgeable as public sector managersknowledgeable as public sector managers

Studying managers of NGOs and end-user Studying managers of NGOs and end-user representatives provides a more representatives provides a more accurate accurate informationinformation but is less representative of the end- but is less representative of the end-usersusers

ConclusionConclusion: Interviews: Interviews Innovation exists and is ubiquitousInnovation exists and is ubiquitous in the in the

public sectorpublic sector Innovation is Innovation is a complex processa complex process that that

involves complexinvolves complex human and organizational human and organizational forcesforces. .

Innovation is Innovation is driven by interests and driven by interests and pressurespressures

Any innovation leads to further policy-driven Any innovation leads to further policy-driven solutionssolutions

Innovation is assessed mostly by “soft” Innovation is assessed mostly by “soft” measure criteriameasure criteria

ImplicationsImplications Public sector organizations should Public sector organizations should

encourageencourage and stimulate organizational- and stimulate organizational-level innovationlevel innovation

[given the positive impact on organizational [given the positive impact on organizational and innovative performance]and innovative performance]

Some components of innovativeness Some components of innovativeness should be more emphasizedshould be more emphasized, i.e., creativity , i.e., creativity [strong impact], risk-taking- should be [strong impact], risk-taking- should be emphasized.emphasized.

ImplicationsImplications (Cont.) (Cont.) Public organizations should Public organizations should consider consider

ways to enhance market orientation, ways to enhance market orientation, team spirit and connectedness-team spirit and connectedness- which which contributed to organizational contributed to organizational innovativenessinnovativeness

Internal politics and centralization Internal politics and centralization reduced organizational innovativeness- reduced organizational innovativeness- their frequency and impact should be their frequency and impact should be reduced in organizations seeking reduced in organizations seeking innovativenessinnovativeness

ImplicationsImplications (Cont.) (Cont.) The The model can be replicated to third sector model can be replicated to third sector

organizations too.organizations too.

Of the InterviewsOf the Interviews Public organizations ought to emphasize & Public organizations ought to emphasize &

nurture the facilitating forcesnurture the facilitating forces [i.e., [i.e., openness, progress and learning, and openness, progress and learning, and consider the obstacles [i.e., tradition and consider the obstacles [i.e., tradition and internal politics ]internal politics ]

ImplicationsImplications (Cont.) (Cont.)

Public organizations and decision makers Public organizations and decision makers should aim at addressing the needs that should aim at addressing the needs that arise from the field: i.e., arise from the field: i.e., improved service, improved service, increased efficiency, enhanced progress increased efficiency, enhanced progress and continuous learning.and continuous learning.

Public organizations should develop and Public organizations should develop and use systematic use systematic innovation and innovation and organizational organizational performance performance measuresmeasures

Thank youThank you

The European Commission University of HaifaINNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR