How can governance support collaborative innovation in the public sector? A systematic review of the literature

Abstract

Collaborative innovation has been increasingly adopted by the public sector to address complex issues and improve its efficiency. Despite the developments in the literature on this subject, recent studies still indicate the need to investigate how public governance could be organized to support collaborative processes of innovation. Through a systematic review of 36 empirical studies, this article aims to contribute to bridging this gap by identifying the characteristics that should form governance in order to support the collaborative innovation process in the public sector. The results show that the establishment of relationships of trust, supported by technology tools and promoted by leaders committed to well-established goals, is a characteristic of governance that has a positive influence on collaborative innovation processes. However, there is still a need to develop more studies that indicate the characteristics of governance that may contribute to the implementation of innovation and not just to its creation processes. Points for practitioners Collaboration has been shown to be a more positive strategy for innovation in the public sector in comparison with strategies that seek isolation or competition. However, it is necessary to establish governance mechanisms that contribute to the involvement of stakeholders and to the achievement of the intended results so that this strategy becomes successful. By reviewing the results of prior empirical experiences, this article identifies that in order for collaborative innovation processes in the public sector to be successful, governance must predict: the participation of top management and managers with decision-making power; the setting of clear goals and needs; the generation of useful innovation that benefits stakeholders; and the establishment of tools that facilitate communication, interaction, and the sharing of information and knowledge. This information provides managers and public policymakers with key indicators, learned from prior mistakes and accomplishments, for the implementation of this innovation strategy in their organizations.

A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation

“…The various practice activities of OI in the public sector has led to an accumulation of a body of academic knowledge and attracted a few scholars to synthesize this knowledge. Currently, there are at least four systematic literature reviews in public administration journals that aim to integrate the various insights gained on OI (Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015;De Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers 2016;Cinar, Trott, and Simms 2019;Lopes and Farias 2020). These reviews seek to provide an explanation for the differential success of OI.…”

“…Cinar, Trott, and Simms (2019) specifically studied barriers of OI and identified how the barriers will change in different innovation stages, but did not explicitly show how the barriers are different between digital and nondigital OI. Lopes and Farias (2020) turned to governance tools and strategies for traditional citizen participation in public innovation, leaving no assessment of whether these governance strategies are also effective for digital OI. Thus, to date, the literature lacks a systematic comparison of barriers and governance strategies between digital and non-digital OI.…”

Collaborative innovation and activation in urban labour markets

“…Advocates of such collaborative approaches point to positive impacts from governance mechanisms: that are: inclusive, tapping the assets and knowhow of stakeholders from diverse communities (Cepiku, 2017); sufficiently open to encourage the joint development and testing of new solutions and support the diffusion of successful innovations (Lopes and Farias, 2020); and consensual but creative, to support and nurture a constructive management of difference through conflict mediation and mutual learning (Sorensen and Torfing, 2015). Sorensen and Torfing (2018) and Torfing et al (2020: 597) also see leadership roles as central to 'producing' collaborative innovation, arguing that the evidence points to a need for 'leadership… to be re-conceptualised as adaptive activities to bring actors together, create trust, enhance information-sharing, facilitate collaboration, spur mutual learning, manage risks, and track results'.…”

“…Increasing interest in supporting innovation in public services has been driven by a number of factors including: the need to respond to so-called ‘wicked problems’ such as the ageing of the population and resulting increasing demands for more personalised services (Oosterlynck et al, 2019); an acknowledgement of the value of new service models addressing needs poorly served or unresolved by traditional state services (Evers and Ewert, 2015); an interest in more cost-effective provision that avoids unnecessary boundaries between public services; and an enthusiasm for governance models that seek to facilitate collaboration across public, private and third sectors (Lopes and Farias, 2020).…”

Collaboration as an approach towards good governance: experiences from China and the USA

“…Engaging non-governmental entities in public affairs has become a growing global trend in the recent decades (Bryson et al, 2006;Ansell & Gash, 2007). Inspired by the rapid development of public-private collaboration in the practice realm, public administration scholars are paying increasing attentions towards the topic of collaborative governance, making it one of the most prevalent research foci in the academia (Emerson et al, 2012;Lopes & Farias, 2020). Hence, Karen Eggleston, John Donahue, and Richard Zeckhauser (2020) bring us their new book The Dragon, the Eagle, and the Private Sector: Public-Private Collaboration in China and the United States, which is a great effort to enrich the academia's knowledge about collaborative governance by providing an insightful theoretical framework and a detailed comparative study about China and the United States.…”