Concepts, Methods and Results

1. INNOVATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR The European Commission University of Haifa Innovation in the Public Sector Concepts, Methods and Results Presented by the U of Haifa Team Brussels, 2005 PUBLIN WP 3

2. Dr. Eran Vigoda-Gadot Dr. Aviv Shoham Dr. Ayalla Ruvio Dr. Nitza Schwabsky Presentation prepared and presented by 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.

3. Innovation “new ways of doing things at the level of institutions”. “A deliberate change of behaviour that maylead to a new or improved service, process, technology, administrative tool or way of organizing activities”

4. Innovativeness Organizational openness: • to new ideas and practices • to the organizational capacity to implement new ideas (Garcia and Calantone, 2002; Hurley and Hult, 1998; Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek, 1973). • "is an enduring trait that is consistently exhibited by innovative firms over a period of time"(Subramanian, 1996, p. 223).

5. Innovation / Public SectorResearch Model: Antecedents Innovativeness Outcomes + Managers End-Users

6. Research Model: Managers & Frontline Employees • Antecedents: • Inf. generation • Inf. dissemination • Responsiveness • Team Spirit • Internal Politics • Connectedness • Centralization • [Learning] • Innovativeness: • Openness • Risk-taking • Future orientation • Creativity • Proavtiveness • Outcomes: • Inn. performance • Org. performance • Ind. & org. Commitment • Satisfaction Learning

7. Research Model: End-Users • Antecedents: • Connectedness • Emp. Professionalsm • Ethics & Morality • Internal Politics • Promoters/innov. • Leadership/Vision • Responsiveness • Innovativeness: • Innovation • Innovativeness • Outcomes: • Image • Satisfaction • Trust in institutions Compared with the Managers’ study- Some constructs were excluded; Fewer variables This might lead to the increase of measurement error.

8. Research Model: Managers in-depth interviews [How examined?] • Antecedents: • Needs that innovations address • Initiators / innovation • Beneficiaries of inn. • Innovativeness • Definitions • Examples • Facilitators of innovations • Obstacles to inn. • Outcomes • Expected consequences • Unexpected cons. • Performance measurement criteria Learning

9. Tools for WP3Established measures from relevant literature; Interdisciplinary Validation: • A Pilot Study with 117 Public practitioners/ students • A Comprehensive Interview with one senior Israeli manager from the health system. Managers End-Users Surveys Interviews Surveys Health Soc.Ser

10. Data Collected - Summary

11. Managers and Frontline Employees:Results

12. Managers & Frontline Employees Combined Results For all participating countries and all sectors • Distributed: 3883 • Responses: 1326 • Response rate: 34.2%

13. Managers: Population Gender Position Sector Age: M=42; s.d.= 11.04 Education: M=15; s.d.=6.32

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Innovativeness - Managers

18. Manager/Front Line Employee Results Highest 2nd highest Lowest Reliability:higher than recommended .07 (Nunnally, 1978) Combined Results

19. Highest 2nd highest Lowest Combined Results

20. Correlation matrix – Part A / Example * p<.05 ** p<.01

21. Correlations – Key Results AntecedentsInnovativeness Low Moderate High Internal politics & centralizationnegatively related Centralization Sig. due to sample size Mostly moderate (r=.4 & r=.5). Innovativeness Antecedents Risk-taking & general innovativeness - weaker [also in many individual country samples]. Probably an adverse effect on org. innovativeness

22. InnovativenessOutcomes Low Moderate High Risk-takingthe-weakest (all but one under .4, and several under .3). Mostlymoderate(r=.35 to r=.6) Creativity-Strongest relationships with most outcomes (all but one over .4) Outcomes Innovativeness Commitment- stronger associations than other outcomes; (r=.5 and more)

23. InnovativenessLearning Low Moderate High Moderateto strong Relationships w/ most Particularly: “innovations – managers” and learning orientation(r =.42 to r =.69). Openness –Strongest:.5 & .6 Exceptions: “innovations – clients” r=.2 to r=.3 General innovativeness and risk-taking the weakestcorrelations to learning. Also weaker in relation to outcomes and antecedents, -- less prominent than other innovativeness measures.

24. LearningInnovativeness Low Moderate High Moderate to strong Learning Effectiveness – Extremely week [r=.2 and lower- sig. due /sample size; ns in countries]

25. End-Users: Results

26. End-UsersCombined Results For all participating countries and all sectors • Distributed: Over 1137 • Responses: 626 • Response rate: less than 55% [no figure for distributed in Slovakia]

27. End-Users: Population Gender Income Sector Age: M=45.5; s.d.= 16.96 Education: M=15.6; s.d.=3.94

28. Major challenges to Innovation in the Public Sector % % % % %

29. Major Barrier to Innovation in the Public Sector % % % % %

30. Innovativeness – End-Users

31. Highest 2nd highest Lowest Reliability:higher than recommended .07 (Nunnally, 1978) Combined Results

32. Correlation matrix Correlation matrix (Cronbach-Alpha in parentheses) Correlations: Majority – of significant relationships. N=592-620; * p<.05 ** p<.01

33. Correlations – Key Results Innovativeness Antecedents Outcomes responsiveness and internal politics–No Significant Relationships, or negatively related; True for the individual countries too. only weakly correlated (r =.24 and less)

34. In-Depth Interviews with Managers & Frontline Employees Implementation Diffusion Initiation Antecedents Innovativeness Outcomes

35. In-Depth Interviews with Managers & Frontline Employees Inductive Content AnalysisTwo phases: Phase 1: ‘National’ – each country on its own • Summary reports prepared

36. Phase 2 of Analysis A cross-sectional “cross-national” analysis of each of the research questions. Validation: • by researchers' judgement • Research Partner teams were asked to make comments.

37. Innovativeness • New Service • Improved service • Processes • Administrative • Conceptual • Systemic / structural • Technological • Professional • Complementary • Policy driven • Cultural • Attitudinal • Grass-Root Definitions Change Newness Purpose Improvement

38. Antecedents Needs and Demandsthat innovations address Improved Services Increased Efficiency INNOVATION Learning Enhanced Progress

39. Whose Needs are Addressed? Who are the Beneficiaries? • Clients • Managers and Administration • Employees • Organization • Clients [?!] • Staff [?!] • Managers

40. Human Forces: Political ‘Gains & Losses’ Management Search for new ways High initiation [1]: create, test, administer, recruit. Personal traits/ leadership Lack of leadership Improved management, efficiency, image. Primary? 1 Clients: Efficient service Low initiation Some are open to new ideas / Complain Improved quality/ service & life, satisfaction? / Primary? 3 4 Politicians Often initiate- policy-driven, ‘feel the pulse’ Facilitate w/ new ideas, set targets, lobby Employees & Practitioners Knowledge & 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 2 Needs/ Demands Initiation Facilitators Obstacles Benefits 5 EU & Outside Org. Initiate w/ ideas and funding w/Policy objectives, goals, standards

41. Organizational Forces: Facilitating forces Organizational Characteristics Obstacles Target Progress Orientation Tradition & Rigidity Culture & Politics Internal & External Politics Climate for Innovation Poor Organizational Learning Supportive Organizational Learning Learning Environment Implementation Diffusion Initiation

42. Outcomes Intended Consequences Mostly positive • 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

43. Outcomes Unintended Consequences Positive • Professionals have become more visible • Variety of solutions • Identified inefficiencies of the old system • Impetus for further innovation • Learning • 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

44. Outcomes Unintended Consequences Negative • Increase in employee turn-over rates • Negative competition • Time pressure • Risk of losing [emp.] competence • Ministry- detached from the field • 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

45. Performance Measurement Criteria • Evaluation - important • Little to none!!! • Often based on impressions & “soft” information. • Based on reputation & visibility • No real criteria • Difficult to measure Structured & routine Lack of measuring criteria When done: No. of received care; complaints; Quality, safety, efficiency, satisfaction, waiting lists

46. Conclusion: Managers • Data provides strong support of the theoretical model [combined & for each country] • A high proportion of variance should be explained by the full set of model variable combination Antecedents Innovativeness Outcomes

47. Conclusion: End-User Rep. • End-users do not perceive the public sector highly innovative • Internal politics was not perceived obstacle • Third sector managers are not as knowledgeable as public sector managers • Studying managers of NGOs and end-user representatives provides a more accurate information but is less representative of the end-users

48. Conclusion: Interviews • Innovation exists and is ubiquitous in the public sector • Innovation is a complex process that involves complex human and organizational forces. • Innovation is driven by interests and pressures • Any innovation leads to further policy-driven solutions • Innovation is assessed mostly by “soft” measure criteria

49. Implications • Public sector organizations should encourage and stimulate organizational-level innovation [given the positive impact on organizational and innovative performance] • Some components of innovativeness should be more emphasized, i.e., creativity [strong impact], risk-taking- should be emphasized.

50. Implications (Cont.) • Public organizations should consider ways to enhance market orientation, team spirit and connectedness- which contributed to organizational innovativeness • Internal politics and centralization reduced organizational innovativeness- their frequency and impact should be reduced in organizations seeking innovativeness