I remember a few raised eyebrows in the late 1990s when we began at the then Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) to look at how we could enhance the capacity of senior officials to be creative and to innovate. Nonetheless, it seemed to us self-evident that we needed to find new ways to tackle the challenges we faced and that repackaging past policies would not do.
More recently it has become much more fashionable to talk about “public sector innovation”. Very often, however, I am left with a feeling that not enough time has been devoted to analysing the problem before offering possible solutions. So I wanted in this contribution to look at some of the obstacles to innovation which I have certainly observed and too often encountered which might then provide a framework for future action.
Governance
If we are serious about innovation we need to revisit the various governance arrangements to assess whether these help or hinder the cause. These will include framework agreements and other corporate planning processes which are meant to shape the relationship between core departments and delivery bodies; other standard doctrines or centrally determined processes which demand compliance and, of course, in central government accounting officer arrangements and the relationship with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the National Audit Office (NAO). You could make a respectable argument to suggest at the moment that we have the worst of both worlds – inadequate accountability frameworks that nonetheless stifle innovation. The National School of Government’s Sunningdale Institute will shortly be doing some work on these issues but we should also remember that in practice the informal conventions which develop can be as powerful as the formal governance arrangements.
Capacity
Innovation will not occur at the flick of a switch. It requires public services to build the capacity to innovate. That means supporting staff to develop some of the skills required; ensuring that they are aware of and able to deploy some of the tools – not least the design tools – which are available such as prototyping, needs based user segmentation or customer insight and journey mapping; building an understanding and appreciation of key disciplines such as service design and growing effective risk management at all levels of the organisation. And the people themselves are important – innovation demands people with a wide range of experience capable of applying that to new settings so the regular recruitment, on whatever basis, of new people and new ideas is critical to success. In the private sector, the Design Council’s “Designing Demand” programme is already proving a powerful route to innovation for many small – and medium-sized companies by making available design associates to work with their senior manager. I see no reason why that programme could not be translated into the public sector with equal success.
Incentives and rewards
The incentives and rewards available in any organisation speak volumes about what is valued. Do the assessment and appraisal arrangements reinforce the importance of innovation? Are the outcomes of those assessments reflected in pay awards? Do the promotion systems favour people with a good track record of innovation? Are leaders constantly looking to recognise innovation? In the private sector, the pressure to achieve profitability and competitive advantage provides its own incentives, but these are not as strong in the public services and organisational leaders need therefore to compensate for this deficit via systems and their own behaviour. But we also need to become better at designing incentive regimes which do not merely reward the highest performers but recognise successful innovation wherever it is found.
Structures
Creativity tends not to flourish in organisations which are centralised, prescriptive, defensive, hierarchical, introspective and status conscious. New thinking will flourish where everyone is valued for their contribution and where ideas can easily travel around the organisation to be challenged and enhanced. So the way in which teams, departments and organisations are structured greatly influences their capacity to innovate. The continuing concerns about the ability of government departments to work effectively across boundaries illustrates that the current structures can still be deeply unhelpful. The free flow of ideas across bureaucratic boundaries significantly lifts the innovative capacity. Equally, the free flow of knowledge and information from staff in regular contact with clients/customers/citizens is a key component of innovation in the public services. The extent to which the structure facilitates or impedes this needs regular attention.
Environment
We have all seen organisations which have been seriously damaged by attacks from the media, organised lobbies and, sometimes, political leaders. They tend to become increasingly risk averse, defensive and focused on the simple act of survival. These are not enjoyable places to work in, and innovation (although needed) is probably the last thing on the minds of the people managing these organisations. The majority find a way of achieving a fresh start often as a result of fresh effective leadership – but some do not. There is no simple answer to these kinds of problems but it is clear that the only way to move forward is to stay open to constructive ideas and feedback and to look forward.
Investment
Innovation does not always require additional resources. Indeed, lack of resources can often be the spark which ignites creative thinking. Nonetheless, the public sector’s investment in business development and “applied” research does not compare well with the private sector. In addition, there can still be a tendency to focus on cost rather than value which can foster a reluctance to invest in spend to save initiatives. The establishment of a policy innovation unit in the DfEE – largely populated with external secondees – did act as a stimulus to innovation across the department and sent strong messages that senior management and the political leadership were open to new ideas.
Leadership
Clearly leaders who genuinely address the various elements of this framework are more likely to foster and innovative culture. But leadership is also about personal behaviour and example and we have all met leaders whose rhetoric is positive but whose behaviour send an entirely different message. It is vital that leaders show that they are open to new ideas; that they will personally try new approaches; that they welcome constructive challenge and that they respond to failure in a way which seeks to learn the lessons without prematurely apportioning blame. It is difficult, as ever, to underestimate the influence of a leader’s style: not least whether it contributes to the development of trust in the organisation. If trust does not exist, innovation is much less likely to happen simply because people will fear that the consequences of failure – never take a risk with someone you do not trust!
In all of this we need to remember that some of the key drivers of innovation in the private sector – bottom-line profit and company failure – do not exist in the public sector. Innovation can not therefore be taken for granted but demands constant leadership attention so that the passion and commitment of so many public servants provides the raw material for success. None of these obstacles is insurmountable, but the public sector and government in particular need to be prepared to use the experience of others to address them. As Chairman of the Design Council, I have been struck by the power of design, design professionals and design tools to drive innovation and I am certain that the greater use of design could play an important part in developing a more innovative public sector.
Lord Michael Bichard became chairman of the Design Council in January 2008, and took up the post as director of the new Institute for Government in September 2008, after nearly 30 years in the public sector.