Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

analytic consistency. Although not ‘soluble’, such problems also encourage
interdisciplinary approaches to innovation. As David Robson 6 told us in the context of
his work on security, ‘the complexity of the response must mirror the complexity of
the problem’. Rather than setting out to solve the problems of international security,
he saw his responsibility as a public-funded policy adviser to prepare for response to
whatever problems arise next. If the response were prepared from only a single
disciplinary perspective, it could be guaranteed to be inadequate.
The best public investment is therefore to create diverse capacity in analysis and
delivery. Diversity is achieved through investment in interdisciplinarity, and
innovation occurs at the time of response, rather than at the time of investment.
Within this strategy, it is considered that when facing real world problems, diversity is
as important as expertise. Furthermore, the necessary range of expertise will not be
contained within any one organisation. This strategy is therefore consistent with the
‘open innovation’ model of Chesbrough - most innovation happens elsewhere, so it is
essential to be open to recognise it. Those arguing for this kind of strategy, rather than
referring to knowledge structures and boundaries, or suggesting mechanistic causal
metaphors of analysis and response, instead used organic ‘cultivation’ or ‘nurturing’
metaphors emphasising capacity to respond rather than conventional policy and
business views of research as problem-solving.
Scale and sustainability in local and national government
Systemic innovation in government will always result, ultimately, in large-scale
change. Just as a large company faces challenges in achieving sustainable innovation,
significant and sustainable change in the public sector may not be compatible with
disruptive innovation.
From the testimonies of David Halpern 7 , from the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit
(PMSU), and Michael Woods, from Haring Woods consultants and Gunpowder Park,
it is clear that similar issues pertain to silos both in central and in local government.
Significantly, David mentioned that disciplinary arguments look odd from the
perspective of policy. However, equally telling, was his recounting of the
competition for resources and departmental priorities that acted as a barrier to crossdisciplinary
engagement in central government. Michael Woods voiced similar
concerns about departmental remits and budgets at the level of local government
preventing any long-term engagement across departmental silos. While project based
teams or policy units might transcend these structural barriers, cutting across
departments or sitting between them, they are tied to the life of the project or the
exigencies of government. In the case of David Halpern, charged with creating a new
policy unit in which cross or interdisciplinary interaction might be more easily
encouraged, such an initiative is itself subject to the whim of government and the
inevitable restructuring of the policy making infrastructure.
6 Expert witness report
7 Expert witness report
Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 25