icegov2012 proceedings

For each case, semi-structured interviews were conducted with
one or two persons responsible for the administration of the
project. Qualitative interviews were used because they provided
an opportunity to understand people within their social and
cultural context. Interviews elicited responses about the i) the
decision to use the challenge format ii) organizational processes
surrounding the use of this approach iii) outcomes and
implementation of submissions and iv) lessons learned and
recommendations for public managers. Some preliminary
qualitative analysis has been conducted on the interview data
which will be followed by a combination of more in-depth
qualitative and content analysis. A combination of deductive and
inductive methods has been employed to identify the main
enablers and barriers to practicing open innovation activities.
4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Organizations who decide to invest in open innovation activities
are sometimes hindered from profiting from these activities due to
certain risks and barriers which they face [4]. In an attempt to
develop a framework for investigating open innovation in the
public sector, we present factors at three distinct levels:
organizational, individual, and project level. At each specific level
a number of factors have been selected based on prominence in
the literature, applicability to the public sector, preliminary
analysis of interview data. At the organizational level the factors
major influencing factors are organization commitment,
management support, and origin of initiative (top-down or
bottom-up). At the project level we examine nature of problem
faced, and presence of a project champion. At the individual level
we examine employee attitudes (Not invented here syndrome) and
perceptions of benefits. At this point the framework is still
emerging and subject to change after more in-depth analysis.
5. FINDINGS
The conceptual framework represents determinants which have so
far been found to influence the decision of an agency to use an
open innovation approach to solve a problem. Preliminary
qualitative analysis of interview data provided support for some of
the factors suggested in the literature such as management
support, organization commitment, employee attitudes, and
perception of benefits. The remaining determinants emerged
inductively from the data: origin of initiative (top-down vs
bottom-up), nature of the problem, and presence of a project
champion. For example one participant stated that “we did it
because it was suggested from the top”, while another indicated
that one of the keys to running an effective challenge was the
presence of a “project champion”. The literature suggested the
presence of bureaucracy and red-tape to be a barrier for
government agencies. Some of the participants who identified
themselves as early adopters indicated that it was extremely
difficult to navigate the necessary legal authority before the
passage of the America Competes Act in 2010. Many admitted
465
that the guidelines and legal authority has significantly reducing
the legal burden for agencies. Other barriers emerging from the
data included legal barriers in selecting judges outside the public
sector, and some technical restrictions of the software platform.
The data provided support for an earlier categorization of the type
of project listed on the challenge.gov website. The four categories
emerging from the process were: i) creativity contests aimed at
public awareness initiatives ii) software applications (apps) and
tools for service provision iii) generating research and ideas and
iv) technical solutions. For example one participant stated that
their agency decided to do only apps challenges because they had
just released a larger amount of public data. Another indicated
that they only did video contests because they “did not have much
experience in running challenges”. Further, there appears to be a
relationship between the category of project undertaken and
mission and strategic plan of the organization. For example,
organizations with public engagement or outreach as part of their
mission had a greater tendency to do video/poster contests and
app challenges. Agencies with a more technical mission tended to
have more of the technical solutions. The different categories of
challenge also varied in level of skill required to solve and the size
of the prize purse attached.
6. OUTLOOK
Factors emerging from the conceptual framework can provide
some guidance to agencies working on current and future
implementations, as well as help them learn from the mistakes and
successes of early adopters. Overall more research is needed on
the viability of open innovation as a public sector practice.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Bughin, J., Chui, M., & Johnson, B. (2008). The next step in
open innovation. The McKinsey Quarterly, June 2008
[2] Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). A Better Way to Innovate.
Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 12-13.
[3] Chesbrough, H. W. (2011). Bringing Open Innovation to
Services. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(2), 85-90.
[4] Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open
R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D
Management, 39(4), 311-316.
[5] Vigoda-Gadot, E., Shoham, A., Schwabsky, N., & Ruvio , A.
(2005). Public sector innovation for the managerial and the
post-managerial era: Promises and realities in a globalizing
public administration. International Public Management
Journal, 8(1), 57-81.
[6] White House (2010). Guidance on the Use of Challenges and
Prizes to Promote Open Government, Memorandum for the
Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, March 8