State-of-the-Art Questionnaire

1. State-of-the-Art Questionnaire Preliminary Results Gävle, October 2nd-4th 2012 Picture courtesy of http://carmodymoran.ie/2012/05/22/personal-injury-statistics/

2. Summary • Sample used for this presentation – current as of September 24th 2012 • Total submitted questionnaires at the time: 107 • Started but not yet completed: more than 300 • Partners need to continue communicating to stakeholders and encourage them to submit their responses • Some countries did better than others in terms of reaching out

3. Sort of a Disclaimer • These are NOT final results – do not make conclusions just yet • All data shown henceforth are for demonstration purposes only; final analysis will be conducted upon closing the questionnaire • Most of the tools you see now will be used to inform and guide the final analysis; meanings will most likely differ

4. Let’s recap • The purpose of the questionnaire • Approach – both pros and cons, technical issues (online administration, anonymity, translation of questions), logistical issues (summer holidays, not aligned) • The questionnaire and the stakeholder interviews are complementary tools, not independent of each other; so is the analysis thereof • Questionnaire focused on assessing organisational and environmental dimensions of innovation; interviews provide a more personal perspective

5. General respondents’ profile

6. Distribution by country • Big difference in the number of respondents from each country – no grounds for country-based analysis • Clearly, the number of completed surveys does not depend on population size • We need to aim for near-equal distribution of responses across countries

7. Population size • Respondents come from various communities in terms of size • Those from places of fewer than 500,000 inhabitants slightly more (52% vs 48%)

8. Highly educated respondents! • More than 80% of the respondents have completed university education • They must know what they are talking about!

9. Age and gender • Equal numbers of men and women as respondents • Half of respondents younger than 45 • No one under 26

10. General information aboutorganisations

11. Organisational affiliations • Most respondents come from a local authority • Very much missing the perspective of the business, civil society and that of central govern-mental institutions

12. Respondents by country and type of organisation • Darker spots indicate higher concentration of responses • Italian local authorities have responded more frequently compared to other combinations

13. Position at workplace • Perspectives skewed away from those of higher management and political leadership • Opportunity to get the opinions of those directly involved in implementation and operations

14. Positions of respondents in their organisations • Most often, respondents occupy an officer-level or middle management position at a local authority

15. Innovation responsibilities • Very few of the respondents are not involved with innovation • It is mostly the officers and middle managers who give new ideas, but in most cases sanction is needed from a higher-level position

16. Size of organisation • Majority of respondents come from bigger institutions

17. Organisations’ budgets • The majority of respondents come from organisations operating with very large budgets

18. Innovation in organisations

19. Innovation units in organisations • Almost half of the respondents indicate their organisation has a specific unit, whose focus is innovation • It is interesting to see which types of organisations have such units…

20. Innovation-focused units in organisations • Overall, most respondents report the presence of a specialised unit focusing on innovation • All private businesses have such units; none of the central government administrations do • Remember – this is NOT representative • Overall, it appears very likely for a local authority to have such a unit Numbers indicate absolute value of responses. Intensity of background colour changes with number.

21. Who is the most influential on decisions about innovation? • Only data from public authorities • In Romania – both the Mayor and the City Council have the strongest influence • In the UK it’s mostly the City Council, along with other collective policy bodies; Mayor is least influential • In Estonia – the administration has the leading edge Numbers represent the mean of all responses on a scale, where 1 stands for the lowest influence, and 5 – for the highest influence.

22. Where is innovationneeded the most? • Strategic innovation, the way services are delivered, and the way policies are designed, are ranked the highest by the respondents • The above suggests that innovation will most likely affect the way administrations are structured, decision-making systems operate, and towards improving the quality and efficiency of services provided • Respondents see the way current services are delivered as more in need of innovation than the introduction of new services • How does the situation differ across countries?

23. Clearly, different countries have different expectations of innovation • Standard deviation row – shows how much variability is among each category within each country • Standard deviation column – shows how much variability is present for each category among countries • The higher the standard deviation score, the greater the variability

24. Overall, different types of organisations see potential for innovation across different areas • Priorities vary the least for local authorities (see standard deviation columns) • Some institutional types are more likely to have a clear priority than others

25. Innovation in the Public Sector

26. Reasons to innovatein the public sector • Overall, the reason most often cited as being the most important for innovation relates to the quality and efficiency of public services • It’s likely that future innovation will be planned out in response to public needs • Based on mean rank score, it could be inferred that there are four distinct “clusters” of reasons • How do countries differ?

27. …by country

28. …and by institution

29. Most relevant attributes of innovation – public sector vs. own organisation • Overall, the relevant advantage over previous practices is seen as the most relevant across countries; hardly any difference between perceptions on the public sector as a whole compared to perception over own organisation

30. Drivers of innovation • Organisational leadership and clear commitments to supporting innovation are perceived as the most important drivers of innovation, along with supportive organisational culture • Interestingly, EU-sourced project and directives are seen as the least significant innovation drivers – innovation is conceived locally!

31. Drivers of innovation • In Poland, EU-projects and directives are ranked much higher than in the other countries • In the UK, financial performance is the most critical driver • Citizens’ demands seem to have similar impact on innovation across countries

32. Financial instruments for innovation

33. Financing innovation • EU sources and budget allocations are the primary sources of financing for innovation for 2/3 of the organisations • Private funding is the least likely to support innovation in the public sector • The sum of all exceeds 100% as respondents were allowed to mark more than one option

34. Agreement with the following statements • Across all countries, utilisation of EU-level instruments is seen as a priority (perhaps the UK is an exception) • In most countries, respondents seem to support separate budget items for innovation • To most, public funds could also be used toward financing innovation

35. Public Procurement

36. Innovation in procurement

37. Innovation in procurement • Based on the previous chart: • Public procurement is not regularly used to stimulate innovation in any of the countries • At the same time, in some countries it is seen as a strong instrument that COULD be used to encourage innovation (i.e. policy design?) • Innovation is seldom used as a criterion in public tenders • In most countries little has changed in the way public tenders are organised

38. Publicly owned enterprises

39. POEs and innovation • Most countries do not see innovation in POEs as necessarily having a higher public value than that in the private sector • However, almost uniformly across countries, respondents agree that POE revenues can be used towards public service delivery

40. Civil society inclusion

41. Involving civil society • Nearly every kind of organisation involves citizens in public debates

42. Innovation and civil society • The added public value of innovation in the public sector is not contested in any country • In the majority of cases, no special funds exist to support innovation by civil society organisations

43. Instead of a conclusion…

44. Responses by Sunday, Sep 30 • Remember, the data shown here were based on a total of 107 responses, as obtained on Monday, September 24th; they are NOT representative • But on Sunday – already 134, so 27 completed within just a week • 17 of the 27 come from Bulgaria; 5 come from Spain, 4 from Estonia, 1 from the UK • We need another round of invites from everyone – send the link to associations of municipalities, or other structures that you could use as “proxies” • Put the link on a visible place in your web sites • We cannot directly tie population size to desired number of responses since we are not surveying citizens

45. Thank you! ZoyaDamianova, Programme Directorzoya.damianova@online.bg Ventseslav Kozarev, Project Officerventseslav.kozarev@online.bg