Innovation
The world today is being faced by an avalanche of problems that need radical
solutions. The major challenges include an aging society, climate change, financial crises and
obesity. Man scholars including Harris and Albury (2009) and Nambisan (2008) feel that the
current state of the public sector is incompetent to finding solutions for these problems. These
scholars propose collaboration and innovation as a new approach towards strengthening the
public sector in order to deal with these problems and mThe DEADLINE is DECEMBER 14,
- This is a Graduate course. Please use double-spaced format. Responses should be in APA
style and must include citations and a bibliography. You are strongly advised to access a variety of
information from academic journals and other scholarly works. Ensure that your answers are well-
organized and that they respond to the specific question asked, display the range and depth of your
learning, and demonstrate your ability to conform to the analysis, writing, and research standards of
master’s level work. The question must be answered fully. The question needs to be 11 pages and
should have at least 9 references.
Question 1
Collaboration and innovation are two words at the heart of modern-day Public Administration.
Examine the academic literature on public sector collaboration and alliances within the field. What
opportunities do collaboration between public agencies and non-profit organizations, or between
public agencies and for-profit organizations, offer for innovatively addressing issues and challenges in
the public sector? As a part of this, please explore in detail three examples of real-world collaboration,
either at the local, state, national, or international level.
MANAGEMENT 2
any more. While it is inevitable to acknowledge the deficits in the public sector, one has to be
skeptical about the form and extent of innovation required for amicable solutions to the major
global problems to be found. One of the major contributing factors to this skepticism is the
lack of research in public sector innovation. Moore (2005) states that there is no consensus on
what constitutes innovation in the public sector.
The private sector is more competitive than the public sector. This has led to it having
more innovations in order to create competitive advantages for different industries and
players in those industries. Innovations are important since they help in opening up new
markets, in improving products and in cutting costs for private enterprises. The lack of
innovation in the private sector means that a company will lose its competitive advantage,
will witness shrinkage in profits and market share and will eventually close down. The need
to for innovation in the private sector has led large enterprises to devote entire departments to
research and development or to rely on crowd-sourcing in order to improve on the products
they have or open new markets. On the contrary, small and medium enterprises, in satisfying
their need for competing with larger enterprises, form alliance that allow them to pool their
resources and play catch-up by copying successful systems.
The public sector is a little trickier when it comes to innovation as there is skepticism
in its capacity for investing in innovations for organizations, services and policies. Most
people employed in the private sector and majority of people in the larger population view
the public sector as an area that is devoid of inertia and is riddled with bureaucracy and a
stalemate that makes innovation difficult. In the 1980s, the neo-liberalist movement garnered
support due to its stance on the status quo propagated by the public sector. This perception of
the public sector is not completely off mark as it is riddled by extensive use of formality in
rules and procedures, has hierarchies that are multi-layered, has no incentives for growth and
improvement, has organizational silos, and has divided political leadership at the top of most
MANAGEMENT 3
bureaucracies. These factors are deterrent to innovation and are key to the public sector being
labeled as stagnant (Halvorsen et al., 2005). The myopia exhibited in the public sector
extends to use of resources for the sake of fighting territorial wars with other public
bureaucracies and for maintaining internal coordination.
The notion that there has been little innovation in the public sector is somewhat
misguided. This is evidenced by the fact that there has been steady growth in the sector since
it does not resemble what was there 20 or 30 years ago. The new public sector is governed by
more conscious policies in terms of climate change management, preventative health care and
labor-market relationships. The digitization of services and the changes in organizational
structures and cultures have radically altered the operations of most public sector
organizations. Although many of the changes have been necessitated by changing times, they
nonetheless indicate that the public sector is driven by innovation albeit minimalist.
One of the greatest drivers of public sector innovation has been the political powers of
the day that have promised and delivered on reforms in the public sector when seeking for
votes and in numerous settings including debates in parliament and other forums including
press briefings and public hearings. Another avenue that has helped advance innovation in the
sector has been the presence of well-educated and knowledgeable individuals in various
capacities in public bureaucracies. These competent and driven individuals adhere to
professional standards and are ambitious enough meaning that they seek to improve services
in the public sector so that they can build their portfolios and attract more responsibilities in
addition to propping themselves for bigger and better challenges.
The other group of individuals that is responsible for innovation in the public sector is
the public that is the recipient of the services offered. The public is more involved in
molding the public sector that it is in the private sector. They give their opinions through
voicing criticism and offering constructive feedback in forums such as public hearings, town
MANAGEMENT 4
gatherings and board meetings. They also offer their opinions through threatening to boycott
services and products and by voting the leadership they want in some bureaucracies. The
combination of threats for boycotts and voicing concerns is a major motivator in encouraging
change in the public sector. The sheer size of the public sector and the lengths to which it
spans means that it has the capacity, more than the private sector, to explore and exploit
options. This is because it has nearly limitless resources meaning that it can absorb costs that
are associated with failed innovations.
Borins (2008) argues that many countries in the world and especially western
democracies are preoccupied with ensuring that innovation is at the top of their
administrative and political agendas. This is evidenced by the numerous initiatives including
the issuing of white papers on innovation, setting up of innovation labs, and creation of
innovation ministries. In order for the personnel being charged with the responsibility of
fostering innovation to be ready for the challenge, there have been special training courses
that have been created.
Innovation is now widely used in the public sector but skeptics caution that the
fashion may soon dissipate as have all other buzzwords that were synonymous with the
public sector prior to it. The majority of experts otherwise view innovation as a means of
reducing costs in public sector operations and also an opportunity for policy deadlocks to be
broken while services are improved for the betterment of the population at large, private
enterprises, and all other stakeholders. There are three historic factors that contribute to the
current focus on innovation. First is the relationship between limited resources and the rising
pressures and expectations of the public that has diminished the fiscal crisis. Traditionally,
the public’s demand for better services was met by increased budgetary allocation to the
public sector. While this is no longer possible, the public sector has been forced to craft more
innovative solutions to meet these needs.
MANAGEMENT 5
The second factor is the increasing difficulty of problems that are being faced by
modern civilizations including climate changes, rising poverty levels, rural-urban migration
and overpopulation in urban areas. These problems are abstract since they are difficult to
quantify and consequently difficult in managing. These complexities warrant the application
of specialized knowledge in order to mitigate against conflicts between various stakeholders.
Standard solutions and increased budgetary allocation cannot solve these problems meaning
that more creativity is warranted. The third factor is globalization that has increased
competition not only between enterprises but also between governments making the most
innovative governments also the winners in exportation of knowledge and solution of
domestic problems. The innovativeness of the public sector can translate to the private sector
and form the difference between two nations.
Innovation is a complex process that enables for problems and challenges facing the
public sector to be defined so that creative solutions are developed. The process has many
feedback loops and jumps that must be navigated for the best solutions to be identified and
the best strategies implemented. Innovation is often learning based and intentional albeit with
chance discoveries. The starting point for having an innovative organization is breaking down
conventional wisdom as well as challenging established practices. One of the major sources
of innovation is the private sector. Contrary to popular belief, innovation does not always
stem from new inventions but is rather mainly a translation of policies that are successful in
other areas into present situations. Thus, the policies, ideas and solutions that have
contributed to the success of for-profit and non-profit organizations can be implemented in
the public sector context to solve recurring problems and address the changing challenges.
Collaboration between public organizations with for-profit and non-profit
organizations should not be based on the development of new solutions for recurring
problems but on how well already established and tested solutions can be tweaked to address
MANAGEMENT 6
existing and arising problems. One of the most reliable sources for solutions is digital
technology. This development has given rise to opportunities that if well exploited creates a
platform through which the public sector, the private sector and citizens of a country interact
for the improvement of enterprise and service delivery. The exploitation of digital
technologies has led to challenges and consequent improvement in the rules of engagement
between different stakeholders.
Elected politicians, public managers, policy experts and citizens have an obligation
towards the improvement of public bureaucracies. However, these groups are not enough as
they have limited knowledge. Consequently, collaboration with the private sector allows for
the incorporation of innovative entrepreneurs that have the necessary skills to articulate
problems and craft possible solutions. These experts also possess knowledge on material
flows and mobilization of immaterial resources to the different points of use or consumption.
These experts have the necessary knowhow to exploit windows or opportunities that arise in
the public sector reform. Traditionally, political theories placed the responsibility of
improving the public sector on elected officials. However, development in the area has
shifted the focus from these officials to public managers or to private contractors.
Additionally, public employees no longer play a passive role in the operations of their
organizations. There has been a radical shift that has opened an avenue for their involvement
in the new concept of user driven innovation.
Undoubtedly, collaboration between the public sector and various domains in the
private sector leads to public innovation. Furthermore, the involvement of many actors in the
political and social contexts in a collaborative context allows for even greater innovation in
the public sector. Solutions to complex problems can only be developed where there is a
relationship between all stakeholders. The most important aspect of these relationships should
be trust. Collaboration ensures that relationships are trust based and that there is a cross-
MANAGEMENT 7
fertilization of ideas that are both creative and new and fit into solution of the defined
problems. Sorensen and Torfing (2011) argue that new solutions can only be implemented if
there is joint ownership between different stakeholders including private enterprises and the
public sector which should be facilitated by coordination and exchange of resources.
Bommert (2010) asserts that a case can be made for collaborative innovation as it ensures that
the public sector benefits from drawing upon knowledge, creativity, imagination, resources,
courage, political authority and transformative leadership that is contained in both the private
enterprise and public sector human resources. Collaboration ensures that there is sharing of
ideas which is often absent in market competition and bureaucracy.
The public sector and private enterprises both gain by engaging in collaborative
ventures with each other simply because they exchange ideas and share the risks and benefits
that are associated with innovation. Left to their own devices, private enterprises engage in
cutthroat competition that more often ends up in the patent office. Similarly, public
bureaucracies do not have incentives for collaboration between each other and only engage at
the most rudimentary level inside their institutional boundaries. They do not have the
incentives and infrastructure to exchange ideas at a strategic level where skills and
competencies are shared throughout organizational structures and hierarchies.
Large firms have realized the constraints of market competition and bureaucracy in
the public sector and are now actively pursuing private public partnerships. Public
bureaucracies have responded to these developments by breaking down their organizational
silos, creating inter-organizational networks and flattening their organizational structures.
Cross-sector collaboration between the private and public organizations has ensured that all
opportunities for innovativeness are pursued at a mutually agreeable cost. Innovations are
done close to where services are produced in the public sector so that they are directly tested
by public sector employees with different backgrounds in a wide array of professions through
MANAGEMENT 8
collaboration with users. Policy makers and managers are also present in these settings so that
they observe the operations of different innovations and work to improve on them.
The private sector can be considered as being way ahead in innovation. As a starting
point, the public sector should seek to capitalize on existing knowledge in the private sector
before attempting new innovations. This opportunity has been realized by a number of public
sector organizations that have created networks with private sector executives in order to
transfer some of the knowledge into the public sector. Eggers and Singh (2009) argue that the
interdependence between the private and public sectors can lead to creation of viable
solutions to the problems that are a constant source of difficulty in the public sector.
In 1992, Clinton campaigned on the platform of increasing standards for federal fuel
economy from 28 to 40 miles per gallon. The president and his running mate, Gore (1992)
referred to the fuel situation as a mortal threat to the security of every nation. US automakers
at the time were vehemently against this move and they had blocked the amendments to the
law in Congress in the previous administration and had instead raised mileage standards. The
Clinton administration thought it prudent to avoid a direct conflict with automakers since it
realized that achieving the standards it envisaged would require much more effort than what
the industry would have been willing to concede. The government instead consulted with
experts in the automobile industry with the intention of changing the design of the automobile
altogether instead of making improvements. The administration entered into a public private
partnership with three of the US’s largest car makers including Ford, GM and Chrysler. The
partnership was referred to as the PNGV (partnership for the new generation vehicles). The
goal of the PNGV was the creation and marketing of cars with three times the fuel economy
of those in 1993 with no sacrifice in terms of performance and costs. The move was
collaborative as the undersecretary of commerce worked with executives from the three
companies and ensured that scientists and technicians had access to the state of the art
MANAGEMENT 9
government laboratories. Buntin (1997) states that the developers had a direct line to the
White House and had access to $300 million in annual spending for research and
development. The PNGV was discontinued by the Bush administration and in its place was
an appeal to shift focus to the development of hydrogen fuelled cars (Garsten, 2002)
One of the earlier forms of private public partnership occurred in New York city
starting in the early 1980s until early 2000s. The city was hit by a fiscal crisis that made
funds for maintenance of its parks scarce. Since the city was growing at a very high rate,
most of the parks became dangerous places for the public. The city management was forced
to improvise and implemented a strategy that entailed enlisting private firms in maintenance,
upgrades and management of the parks. There were several outlets that expressed interest and
included conventional volunteers dubbed friends of the park, conventional outsourcing and
more complex arrangements that required sharing of discretion.
The most notable group was a coalescing of private citizens into a non-profit
organization dubbed the Central Park Conservancy that took up responsibility of New York’s
largest park in the late 90s. Other parks like the Bryant Park were delegated to the business
improvement district, which was mandated to collect special levies from businesses around
the park for its maintenance and management. These partnerships helped steer the parks of
New York at a time when the city could not. The partnerships were innovative since the city
did not cede ownership of the parks but rather empowered non-governmental actors to
upgrade and maintain them at a small cost to the city.
Presently across the US, there are many public private partnerships that are ongoing.
Some of the most common partnerships are with state governments and private enterprises
for building, repairing and maintaining public infrastructure. The state government of
Pennsylvania is planning to have at least 500 of its bridges replaced. The plan is to give the
contract to a single firm. The project is estimated to cost around $1.2 billion if financed
MANAGEMENT 10
through traditional means. However, the state is looking to enter into a partnership with a
company that is willing to take the contract at a lower fee.
The planned construction in Pennsylvania is expected to follow the model that was
adopted for the construction of the Goethals Bridge connecting Staten Island in New York to
New Jersey and which was undertaken by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
The plan is for the port to reimburse the private developers that took the contract through the
payment of regular instalments while the bridge and road will be available for use. This mode
of payment is referred to as availability payment and is involved in numerous other projects
across the US. The New York port authority intends to apply the same model in the
replacement of the terminal at LaGuardia Airport in a project estimated to cost over $3.6
billion. While the company given the contract is expected to maintain and manage the
terminal until 2050, construction will have been complete by 2021.
The use of private public partnerships is on the rise. These partnerships are as a result
of collaborative ventures between the public and the private sector informed by the need to
solve the complex problems of the 21 st century. The advantage of these partnerships is that
they present mutual benefits and allow for shared risks between stakeholders in the private
and public sectors.
MANAGEMENT 11
References
Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public
Management Review, 11(1), 15-33.
Borins, S. (ed.). (2008). Innovations in Government. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press.
Buntin, J. (1997). From confrontation to cooperation: how Detroit and Washington became
partners. Kennedy School of Government Case Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University.
Eggers, W.D., & Singh, K.S. (2009). The Public Innovator’s Playbook: Nurturing Bold Ideas
in Government. Deloitte Research.
Garsten, E. (2002). Bush abandons high-mileage program for hydrogen fuel-cell. Associated
Press State and Regional Wire Service, 9 Jan.
Gore, A., Jr. (1992). Earth in the Balance. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Halvorsen, T., Hauknes, J., Miles, I., & Roste, R. (2005). On the differences between public
and private sector innovation. Publin Report, D9.
Harris, M., & Albury, D. (2009). Why radical innovation is needed for the recession and
beyond: The Innovation Imperative. NESTA discussion paper, March.
Moore, M.H. (2005). Breaking-Through Innovations and Continuous Improvement: Two
Different Models of Innovative Processes in the Public Sector. Public Money and
Management, 25(1), 43-50.
Nambisan, S. (2008). Transforming Government Through Collaborative Innovation. IBM
Center for the Business of Government.
Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector.
Administration and Society, 43(8), 842-68.
