<strong>The</strong> <strong>Persistence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Innovation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Government</strong>: A Guide for Innovative Public Servantswww.bus<strong>in</strong>ess<strong>of</strong>government.orgBoth Innovat<strong>in</strong>g with Integrity and <strong>The</strong> <strong>Persistence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Innovation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Government</strong> exam<strong>in</strong>ed thesemif<strong>in</strong>alist award applications for evidence <strong>of</strong> either <strong>in</strong>crementalism or strategic plann<strong>in</strong>g todeterm<strong>in</strong>e the extent to which each was actually used. Adaptive <strong>in</strong>crementalism means the<strong>in</strong>itiator <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>novation had an approximate idea <strong>of</strong> the shape the <strong>in</strong>novation should take atthe outset and then ref<strong>in</strong>ed that idea over a considerable length <strong>of</strong> time on the basis <strong>of</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>gand experience. Strategic plann<strong>in</strong>g occurred when the <strong>in</strong>novator had a comprehensive view<strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>novation and proceeded to implement it relatively quickly and without a great deal <strong>of</strong>modification.In the author’s survey <strong>of</strong> applications to the Commonwealth <strong>Innovation</strong>s Award <strong>in</strong> 1998 and2000, there was a question on plann<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>crementalism that briefly def<strong>in</strong>ed each approachand asked the <strong>in</strong>novator whether the process could better be described as plann<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>crementalism,or a mix <strong>of</strong> the two (Bor<strong>in</strong>s 2001, question 6, p. 730). For the HKS Awards, this questionwas not asked explicitly but the answer was <strong>in</strong>ferred from the application <strong>in</strong> its entirety.In all these studies, plann<strong>in</strong>g was observed more frequently than <strong>in</strong>crementalism. <strong>The</strong> 2010semif<strong>in</strong>alists showed much more plann<strong>in</strong>g (70 percent) than either <strong>in</strong>crementalism (17 percent) or plann<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>crementalism together (11 percent). Significantly, when <strong>in</strong>novatorswere explicitly asked <strong>in</strong> the Commonwealth survey, over one-third (36 percent) cited both(see Table 10).Table 10: Modes <strong>of</strong> Analysis for <strong>Innovation</strong>sMode <strong>of</strong> Analysis2010Semif<strong>in</strong>alists1990 to 1994Semif<strong>in</strong>alistsCommonwealth,1998 and 2000Comprehensive Plan 70% 59% 43%Incrementalism 17 30 17Plann<strong>in</strong>g and Incrementalism 11 NA 36Pilot Study or Project 41 35 20Public Consultation 35 11 16Legislative Process 27 8 2Task Force 26 0 0Consultant 17 7 0Organizational Strategic Plan 13 7 7Replicate Public Sector 0 12 14Replicate Private Sector 8 0 0Replicate Nonpr<strong>of</strong>it Sector 0 4 0Client Survey 2 4 16N 127 217 56Estimated Slope .93*** .78**Estimated Intercept <strong>in</strong>sig. <strong>in</strong>sig.R-squared (goodness <strong>of</strong> fit) .65*** .31**Note: For slope and <strong>in</strong>tercept estimates and R-squared, * <strong>in</strong>dicates significantly different from zero at 10 percent,** at 5 percent, *** at 1 percent, <strong>in</strong>sig. = <strong>in</strong>significantly different from zeroSources: 2010 applications. For 1990 to 1994 semif<strong>in</strong>alists, see Bor<strong>in</strong>s (1998), Table 3–5, p. 50. ForCommonwealth, see Bor<strong>in</strong>s (2001), p. 727.21
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Persistence</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Innovation</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Government</strong>: A Guide for Innovative Public ServantsIBM Center for <strong>The</strong> Bus<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>of</strong> <strong>Government</strong><strong>The</strong> broad conclusion is that formal plann<strong>in</strong>g and adaptive implementation are both important.In addition to these two fundamental approaches, a number <strong>of</strong> other types <strong>of</strong> analyses precededtheir <strong>in</strong>novations, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g pilot studies or projects, public consultation, task forces,consultants’ reports, and strategic plans for the entire organization.F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Ten: Innovators Cont<strong>in</strong>ue to Face Bureaucratic Resistance, ExternalOpposition, and Fund<strong>in</strong>g ShortfallsImplementation <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>novation necessarily <strong>in</strong>volves w<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g support. Decision-makers needto be conv<strong>in</strong>ced, partners need to be brought on board, and potential users <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>novationshould be contacted. <strong>The</strong> dynamics <strong>of</strong> w<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g support were explored <strong>in</strong> a three-part question<strong>in</strong> the semif<strong>in</strong>alist questionnaire that posits a process <strong>of</strong> encounter<strong>in</strong>g and then overcom<strong>in</strong>g (orat least liv<strong>in</strong>g with) a set <strong>of</strong> obstacles: “Please describe the most significant obstacle(s)encountered thus far by your program. How have they been dealt with? Which ones rema<strong>in</strong>?”Table 11 shows 16 reported types <strong>of</strong> obstacles. <strong>The</strong> table’s last l<strong>in</strong>e shows that the semif<strong>in</strong>alistsreported an average <strong>of</strong> slightly more than two “most significant” obstacles.<strong>The</strong> obstacles themselves can be organized <strong>in</strong>to three groups. Together, they <strong>of</strong>fer a cogentrem<strong>in</strong>der <strong>of</strong> just how complex an enterprise <strong>in</strong>novat<strong>in</strong>g is, how many compet<strong>in</strong>g organizationaland personal <strong>in</strong>terests must be balanced, and how many logistical pitfalls must be avoided toachieve a successful outcome.<strong>The</strong> first group <strong>of</strong> obstacles consisted <strong>of</strong> barriers aris<strong>in</strong>g primarily with<strong>in</strong> the bureaucracy.<strong>The</strong>se <strong>in</strong>cluded forms <strong>of</strong> resistance such as hostile or skeptical attitudes or turf fights, difficultycoord<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g organizations, logistical problems, difficulty ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the enthusiasm <strong>of</strong> programstaff (burnout), difficulty implement<strong>in</strong>g a new technology, opposition by unions, oppositionby middle management, and opposition to entrepreneurial action with<strong>in</strong> the public sector.<strong>The</strong> second group <strong>in</strong>cluded obstacles aris<strong>in</strong>g from the organization’s external environment.Some <strong>of</strong> these arose <strong>in</strong> the political environment: legislative or regulatory constra<strong>in</strong>ts, politicalopposition, the concern that an <strong>in</strong>novation will not survive the transition to new political leadership,and public doubts about the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the program (which would be conveyed tothe politicians). Other obstacles arose from the economic and social environment: difficultyreach<strong>in</strong>g the program’s target group, opposition by affected private sector <strong>in</strong>terests, and oppositionfrom private sector entities that would be forced to compete with the <strong>in</strong>novative program.Lack <strong>of</strong> resources was classified separately because it might be due to constra<strong>in</strong>ts at eitherthe political or bureaucratic levels.More than 50 percent <strong>of</strong> the obstacles reported by both the 2010 and 1990 to 1994 semif<strong>in</strong>alistswere <strong>in</strong>ternal. <strong>The</strong>y reflect the tendency <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>novations to challenge occupational patterns,standard operat<strong>in</strong>g procedures, and power structures. It is surpris<strong>in</strong>g that the 2010semif<strong>in</strong>alists, despite their much higher level <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>terorganizational collaboration, reportedcoord<strong>in</strong>ation problems less frequently (5 percent) than the 1990 to 1994 semif<strong>in</strong>alists (10percent). <strong>The</strong> good news implicit <strong>in</strong> this f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g may be that the American public sector hasbecome both more comfortable with, and more pr<strong>of</strong>icient at, manag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terorganizationalcollaboration, draw<strong>in</strong>g on an accumulat<strong>in</strong>g body <strong>of</strong> research and experience.Legislative or regulatory constra<strong>in</strong>ts occurred when an <strong>in</strong>novator was hampered by legislationor regulations that had been enacted previously to address other issues or problems, or whatAllison Hamilton, orig<strong>in</strong>ator <strong>of</strong> Oregon’s Solar Highway program, called “words on paper writtenlong ago.” Her particular phras<strong>in</strong>g reveals an optimistic resolve not to be daunted by this22
Change language