Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
INNOVATION
Lars Fuglsang
2010/1 n° 5 | pages 67 à 87
La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les
limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la
licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie,
sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de
l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage
dans une base de données est également interdit.
so-called “ad hoc innovations” (Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997). Drejer (ibid.)
argues that this amounts “to equalising learning, competence development
and knowledge codification with innovation”. But one answer to this is that
“it is innovation characterised by degree of indirect reproducibility” (cf.
Gallouj and Windrum, 2009: 144). Ad hoc innovations are changes that
lead to the building of new competencies which become an integral part of
a service and will change a service indirectly.
Another debatable issue is how innovation can be differentiated from
change. In order to differentiate innovation from the broader concept of
change, innovation is sometimes seen as intentional. It is “deliberate changes
in behaviour with a specific objective in mind”, according to a European
project on public innovation called PUBLIN (Koch et al., 2005: 1). Changes
that occur in a more unconscious or indirect way do not count as innova-
ing of innovation in services and public services. The core of innovation is the
work that goes into the implementation, diffusion, replication or dissemina-
tion of an invention. But it is questioned whether abruptness (radical innova-
tion) and intentionality are relevant criteria in the study of (public) service
innovation. Instead, it is stressed that innovation in public sector services
should be seen in light of processes of building of skills and expanding routines.
Several attempts have been made recently to examine change processes
and innovation in the public sector (see for example Rogers and Kim, 1985;
Koch and Hauknes, 2005; Koch et al., 2005; Mulgan and Albury, 2003; Hartley,
2005; Bessant, 2005; Young Foundation, 2006; Veenswijk, 2005; Bekkers et al.,
2006; Becheikh et al., 2007; Windrum, 2008; Fuglsang, 2008).
Much of this literature studies innovation as intentional or imposed and
radical: Innovations start as policies or reforms which are negotiated among
politicians and senior managers (see for example National Audit Office 2006a,
2006b). Radical innovations which could be called policy innovations or
systemic innovations (Windrum, 2008), such as New Public Management
(NPM), as well as the impact of these innovations on public sector develop-
ment, tend to be stressed. The reason for this is obvious: politicians and senior
managers have formal power and often public legitimacy to change the public
sector. Change is development, implementation and diffusion of their ideas
and intentions.
Nevertheless, the present paper is an attempt to argue for a process-based
and intrinsic perspective on innovation in order to capture better what goes
on in public sector services and how innovation becomes socially sustained.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
To distinguish a process- and practice-based approach to innovation from
other research traditions of public sector development, five research per-
spectives can briefly be distinguished. While the three first tend to deal with
3. Competition state. Partly related to, but also distinct from, this tradi-
tion are notions such as the “competition state” (i.e. Cerny, 1995, 2008;
Kirby, 2002, 2004), the “post-welfare contracting state” (Cerny and Evans
2004), the “schumpeterian workfare state” (Jessop, 2002), intrusive “hyper-
innovation” of the new state (Moran, 2003) or reinventing government
(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) (see also Cerny, 2008). This literature explains
in different ways how the welfare state is being transformed into a competi-
tion state. The reason for this is globalization and growing competition
between states. Public institutions are also drawn into this new logic of com-
petition. This enables them to be competitive in comparison with similar
institutions in other countries (for example in health and education). In this
case, therefore, global competition and economic impact rather that public
choice theory or principal-agent problems becomes the rationale for reform
and development. For example, public institutions in education must prepare
the workforce for future competition. In this process, the borderlines between
private and public goods are blurred, many specific assets of the public sector
are turned into general private assets, and the state is reorganized from a civil
association to become a kind of social enterprise (Cerny, 1995).
While the above three traditions tend to stress the existence of a policy-
directed pressure for change to which organizations adapt (for a review of
adaptation approaches see also Hannan and Freeman, 1989), there are other
theories of innovation and change that more stress interactions, networks,
and citizen-orientation. In these understandings, there appear to be more
emphasis on action and interaction than on policy and planning. Innova-
has also lately paid attention to public sector innovation (Nelson and Winter,
1977; Koch et al., 2005; Mulgan and Albury, 2003; Bessant, 2005; Windrum,
2008). In this research tradition, innovation is seen as a more distinct activ-
ity, and different types and forms of innovation are investigated (product,
process, organizational and so on). Furthermore, this tradition tends to stress
both internal and external drivers of change in complex interactions.
Related approaches are the dynamic capabilities approach or the resource
based approach, which could also be applied to the public sector. Here,
resources for innovation are seen as idiosyncratic and heterogeneous (for a
review see Ahuja and Katila, 2004) and therefore they are difficult to plan
and control. The uncertainties and interactivities of innovation are also
emphasized in actor-network theories. Stabilization of innovations in actor-
networks is understood as an unfolding, uncertain, and heterogeneous pro-
cess which will have to be continuously negotiated and redefined (see
among others Callon, 1986; Latour, 2005).
Table 1 – Literatures on public sector development and innovation
Public New Competition Social and public Innovation
administration institutionalism state entrepreneurship theory
plans must be seen in retrospect because they emerge in and are constituted
through an unfolding practice. In this perspective, innovation must be seen
as an emergent phenomenon which must be constituted by a practice in
order to achieve impact. Innovations emerge out of practices that constitute
them as reproduced, replicated entities. While in this perspective innova-
tions are still seen as anticipated in a broad sense, innovations are not inten-
tional in the narrow sense of being derived from policies and plans. Rather,
they must be seen as continuously constituted in an evolving practice where
problems are uncovered and responded to. This also implies that they are
understood as intrinsic phenomena rather than as imposed by external poli-
cies and plans. This view is important both because this approach may
reveal innovation activities that are otherwise unaccounted for in surveys
and so on, and because it accounts for the mechanism of replication which
– paradoxically– seems so critical to the concept of innovation.
INNOVATION AS BRICOLAGE
As mentioned, innovation is usually defined as consisting of two intertwined
activities: 1) inventing or identifying something new, and 2) developing this
new so that it becomes accepted in an organisation, on the market, or in
society (cf. e.g. National Audit Office, 2006a). This “new” can be a product,
a process, a service, a concept, an organizational innovation, a policy, a sys-
tem and much more (see e.g. Windrum, 2008). To count as innovation it
must be replicated and have impact on development. This definition is rel-
innovation as a conscious and purposeful activity where the main idea and
problem is understood and pursued from the beginning by entrepreneurial
people with strong willpowers.
Empirical research especially in services suggests, however, that innova-
tion and replication is not always a planned and intentional activity in rela-
tion to an understood problem. Sometimes it can better be understood as an
emergent process and practice. Toivonen, Touminen and Brax (2007) have
identified three types of innovations in case studies: The model of separate
planning stage (where innovation is planned in advance), the model of rapid
application (a kind of trial and error model of innovation where prototype
innovations are tried out and adjusted in practice) and the model of a poste-
riory recognition of innovation (an unintentional mode of innovation
where innovations that work in practice are recognised only in retrospect).
The second and the third are not intentional in the sense of Koch et al.
(2005). They represent more experimental, heterogeneous and emerging
attempts to respond to problems and cues in a given context and gain impor-
tance and replicability for invented elements. Innovation is therefore not
always an activity which starts with an intention in this narrow sense. Gal-
louj and Weinstein (1997:549) define ad hoc innovation in the following way:
Ad hoc innovation can be defined in general terms as the interactive (social) construction of
a solution to a particular problem posed by a given client. It is a very important form of inno-
vation in consultancy services, where the available knowledge and experience accumulated
over time are harnessed and put to work synergistically to create fresh solutions and new
knowledge that changes the client’s situation in a positive and original way.
Method
In the following section, an attempt is made to illustrate how innovation is
organized in public sector services and how the concept of bricolage can be
used to understand innovation in a public service institution.
In a research project 1 a small case-analysis of innovation was carried out
in elderly care in a town district of Copenhagen (in the following just called
the case). Interviews were made with three home carers, one home nurse,
two officers in charge of approving elderly for home care, one physiothera-
pist, two clerical employees and three top-managers in charge of elderly care.
They were asked about how management, employees and clients are
involved in innovation and how innovations can emerge from encounters
among employees and clients.
The investigation reveals that innovation takes place in at least three
different ways: 1) As an intentional top-management initiated abstract
interest-creating and employee-involving activity around a new idea (for
example a new health care centre that has to be created). 2) As a manage-
ment mediated problem driven formalising activity around concrete prob-
lem-solutions (for example a new way to shop for the elderly or an elderly-
men get-together). 3) As bricolage and ad hoc innovation (services are con-
tinuously adjusted in relation to clients leading to an expansion of routines).
In the following these three approaches will be further explored and it will
can come to terms with inputs from society so that the organization is not
detached from “the reality in which it lives”:
If one is going to find out how we pay attention to development, it is by coming to terms with
all the inputs we get from our surroundings. It may be from our own organization, the people
we take care of and what happens in society, in educational institutions, research and so on.
It is part of the management task both to ensure that there is support for daily operations but
also focus on development. Otherwise, at a certain point in time, one is left with an organi-
zation which is not well integrated in the reality in which it lives.
At the time of the interview with management, the case was planning for
developing a new health care centre in connection with home care. This
idea came from the political-administrative system. The background was a
new health act, in which the Danish municipalities were obliged to take
care of health promotion. It was not specified in the act how to do so. A
health care centre emphasising prevention and rehabilitation can be one
stakeholders…. It is a complete concept that we will try out here. We have achieved a budget
to try it out and we have found office space for it.
But the case wants to develop the idea of the health care centre to suit
local resources and demands better: By integrating health promotion with
elderly care, health promotion will reach people that are not already diag-
nosed with chronic diseases.
When we meet with the project group (from the health administration, ed) which comes here
and says that now you must implement this (a health care centre, ed), then we say: Fine, but
we want to develop it further. We want to implement what you have done. This is probably
good. The health care centre functions well. Therefore, we don’t want to spend too much
time on this. What we want to spend time on is the next step. Further develop it, because we
think this is the right thing to do.
It is difficult to convince the different actors and build the necessary net-
works both externally and internally.
What we do, we have had to fight for. To have other people understand the idea, think in the
same way as in home care and the training centre, we have been alone on that point.
The employees have had difficulties along the way. What is it they (management, ed) want
me to do?
Now we have thrown a ball, then we must put pressure on our administration to catch it. And
make this the way we work here.
These employees are not working front stage in the homes of the elderly, but
back stage in offices. In this setting, managers and employees often organize
meetings in order to clarify problems and new ideas that can solve concrete
problems. From time to time, pilot project are initiated to test a possible
solution to a problem. Some of these pilots become implemented on a per-
manent basis. Three small examples can serve as illustrations of innovation
as a semi-intentional phenomenon:
The first example is a new concept for introducing elderly people to day
activity centres. Newcomers to these day centres can feel lonely amongst
other people in the day centre. Therefore, the case had the idea to let expe-
rienced elderly introduce newcomers to the centres. This idea emerged from
nurses that were responsible for carrying out preventive talks with elderly
people. Among other things, they asked elderly people whether they wanted
to attend a day centre. As a consequence of these interviews, it became clear
that there was an important problem here. Day centres were contacted and
it was suggested that they encouraged experienced elderly to take the new-
comers by the hand.
The second example is a new tour shopping feature for pensioners. The
idea came from management after an enquiry from a bus owner. The bus
owner was transporting pensioners to day centres, but he had available time
during the day. What could this time be used for? Management resolved that
the existing shopping arrangement for clients perhaps could be changed.
Rather than bringing commodities to the clients, the bus owner could take
them to the local shopping centre where they could do the shopping them-
selves. A pilot project was organised. The evaluation of this pilot showed
that the clients preferred this new arrangement to the old one. The new
arrangement was also less expensive than the old one.
The third example is a project meant to stimulate elderly men to attend
local clubs – which the municipality can offer for its citizens according to
the Danish Service Act (§ 79). The idea came from an entrepreneur-type
employed in the Copenhagen health administration. This person had earlier
worked with elderly care in a volunteer organisation. The specific back-
ground for this idea was the high suicide rate for elderly men. The Ministry
of Social Affairs and local district councils therefore agreed to finance a
three years’ pilot project which could target activities in these clubs towards
men. Coming more in these clubs could help elderly men to build a network
around their interests. This arrangement has been continuously evaluated
Bricolage
handle the meeting with the citizens. Such ideas are then often discussed in
the lunch break. One example is how to take care of a deaf client:
I had a client who was completely deaf. She was sitting in her own thoughts. She had a lamp
which gave out light when one pushed the alarm bottom. Often she sat knitting. You could
give her a fright, if you entered the door. Then I stamped my foot in the floor. Then she felt
the vibration. Then she was not scared when somebody suddenly stood there – if she had not
paid attention to the light from the lamp. This is something you can also use in relation to
other deaf persons. I have explained this to other home helpers. These are small things, but
they matter for the single person.
Home helpers must often respond to people when they are not satisfied
with the service. This is also a source of innovation and bricolage:
If the citizens are unsatisfied I try to please them as good as I can. Usually you can uncover
the problem by yourself together with the citizen. We also talk about how we can deal with
them in the group. And inspire each other about how you can deal with it in a smart way.
There is a lot of talk about this.
beyond the group. “We’re not talking with other groups in Copenhagen. We
do not share experiences with other districts.” Over time, each group by
working in a district with particular clients – not being much in contact
with other groups – develop a specific work style and distinct routine that
fits the needs of citizens in the local area – and which is reproduced. This
bricolage adds up to a kind of process innovation based on experience and
interaction with citizens.
Citizens are rarely directly proposing new ideas for development and
innovation. They do not directly formulate a general idea for a service. Cit-
izens in the district are basically seen as grateful in relation to public service.
Home helpers and home nurses must instead try to identify problems by lis-
tening carefully to the citizen. They try to adjust the service drawing on con-
versations with citizens.
Citizens come up with ideas about how they can be more self-supporting… Home helpers
respond to this. They come up with concrete suggestions as to what can be done. Then we
discuss this and arrange a meeting with the citizen. It is in a conversation with the citizen that
we formulate a need.
Home helpers “edit” their time and tinker with schedules to get things
done. They know how much time they should spend on a client and they
make small decision about this. In this way, they develop a more flexible rou-
tine based in experience.
I am not so strict on my time when I am with a citizen. If she needs me to stay a quarter of an
hour more, then I do it. Then I just catch up in another place, with somebody else, where I
know I will not fully use my time. You have to be flexible in order to be employed in home
care.
This in turn means that each home group will develop a distinct working
style which is relevant for citizens in the local area.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that three types of innovation exist in the case: 1) Inno-
vation as an intentional activity, 2) innovation as a semi-intentional activity,
and 3) innovation as bricolage. For management, innovation is intentional
and imposed. For employees it is bricolage and intrinsically motivated.
It was argued that studies of innovation and development in public sector
services should take account of this practice- and process-based aspect of
innovation, since it can be seen as innovation with an impact on service
development. Process-based concepts such as ”ad hoc innovation” (Gallouj
and Weinstein, 1997), ”a posteriori recognition of innovation” (Toivonen et
al., 2007) and ”bricolage” (see e.g. Styhre, 2009) are highly relevant to under-
standing and analysing not just the daily routines but also critical aspects of
service development in this context. These activities “adjust the protocol to
unforeseen events” and “create structures by means of events”. Building skills
and expanding routines are at the core of this “bricolage”. In this sense, bri-
colage “involves some element that can be repeated in new situations”. It
opens the space for new ways of doing things and has an impact on the
development of services. But it is not “radical” innovation nor is it “inten-
tional” in the narrow sense of the word.
REFERENCES
AHUJA, G., KATILA, R. (2004), Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic
situations. Strategic Management Journal 25 (8-9):887-907.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., HERRON, M. (1996), Assess-
ing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39 (5):1154-1184.
BECHEIKH, N., HALILEM, N., JBILOU, J., MOSCONI, E., HAMMAMI, H.,
LANDRY, R. (2007), Conceptualization and Determinants of Innovation in the Public
Sector: A Systematic Review. Paper read at XVII International RESER Conference (Euro-
pean Research Network on Services and Space): "Service Competitiveness and Cohesion
- Balancing Dynamics in the Knowledge Society", 13-15th September 2007, at Tampere
Hall, Tampere, Finland.
BEKKERS, V., DUIVENBODEN, H. V., THAENS, M., eds. (2006), Information and Com-
munication Technology and Public Innovation: Assessing the ICT-Driven Modernization of Public
GALLOUJ, F., WINDRUM, P. (2009), Services and services innovation. Journal of Evolu-
tionary Economics 19 (2):141-148.
GARFINKEL, H. (1967), Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
GARUD, R., HARDY, C., MAGUIRE, S. (2007), Special Issue on "Institutional Entre-
preneurship". Organization Studies 28 (7):957-1140.
GHERARDI, S. (2005), Organizational Knowledge : The Texture of Workplace Learning.
Oxford: Blackwell.
GOFFMAN, E. (1959), The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.
HANNAN, M. T., FREEMAN, J. (1989), Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
HARTLEY, J. (2005), Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Pub-
lic Money & Management 25 (1):27-34.
HERNES, T. (2008), Understanding organization as process : theory for a tangled world. Lon-
JESSOP, B. (2002), The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press.
KANTER, R. M. (1996), The Change Masters. Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. London/
Boston: International Thompson Business Press.
KIRBY, P. (2002), The Celtic Tiger in Distress: Growth with Inequality in Ireland. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
KIRBY, P. (2004), Development Theory and the Celtic Tiger. The European Journal of
Development Research 16 (2):301-328.
KOCH, P., CUNNINGHAM, P., SCHWABSKY, N., HAUKNES, J. (2005), Innovation
in the Public sector. Summary and policy recommendations. Oslo: Publin Report
No. D24, NIFU STEP.
KOCH, P., HAUKNES, J. (2005), On innovation in the public sector - today and beyond.
Oslo: Publin Report No. D20, NIFU STEP.
LATOUR, B. (2005), Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, Claren-
don lectures in management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LÉVI-STRAUSS, C. (1966), The savage mind. Chicago & London: The University of
Chicago Press.
MEYER, J. W., ROWAN, B. (1977), Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2):340-363.
MORAN, M. (2003), The British Regulatory State: High Modernism and Hyper-Innovation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MULGAN, G., ALBURY, D. (2003), Innovation in the Public Sector. London: Strategy
Unit, Cabinet Office, October 2003.
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (2006a), Achieving innovation in central government
organizations, HC 1447-I. London: The Stationary Office.