Innovation Management in Swedish Municipalities

Abstract

Research on public sector innovation is still limited, and increased knowledge of innovation processes is needed. This article is a based on a study of the fulfillment of innovation policies in Swedish municipalities and gives a first-hand, empirical view of the complexities of innovation in the public sector. The study took place in four municipalities in central Sweden. The municipalities varied in size and organizational forms. Interviews and policy documents were used for data collection. The results showed that the innovation policies were not followed by action, which may be described as not mobilizing dynamic capabilities to create innovativeness. Thus, dynamic capabilities such as learning and HRM were not used in conjunction with innovation. Particularly amongst senior management there was a negative attitude towards the innovative capacity of their organization. Middle management saw possibilities. However barriers such as extensive control systems removed the focus from innovation. Communication lacked between senior management and middle management regarding innovation. The conclusion was that innovation, as both concept and practice, was not fully embraced by the municipalities. It is suggested that a generative leadership, opening up for communication within the organizations, especially between employees, could be beneficial and that a common understanding and definition of the innovation concept is needed. Integration of top-down processes with bottom-up processes, such as employee-driven innovation, is also suggested.

Managers’ support for workplace innovation in the public sector: Wedged between expectations and conditions

“…The public sector is facing increasing demands due to changes in demography, technology and climate, while at the same time dealing with insufficient resources as well as multiple and sometimes competing objectives (Christensen et al, 2020;Wihlman et al, 2016). To meet these demands, innovation and an increase in innovation capacity have been suggested as ways in which public sector organisations can readjust and make the necessary changes (Albury, 2005).…”

User-driven innovation and technology-use in public health and social care: A systematic review of existing evidence

“…Generally speaking, all included studies demonstrate a strong believe that UDI in public health and social care is far more sustainable than innovations generated by a single institution. By focusing on the end-users, health and care recipients and professionals, UDI first unfolds welfare principles, such as empowerment and client self-determination (Humphreys, 2015;Lassen et al, 2015;Angelini et al, 2016); it also facilitates changes of culture of care, and organizational structure where top-down innovation process was dominate (Sugarhood et al, 2014;Wihlman et al, 2014;Luckock et al, 2017;Valaitis et al, 2017). Through involving different intermediate users, UDI brings closer cooperation among different health and social care stakeholders and facilitate the change of existing system for a better solution to addressed revealed challenges (Lindgren, 2013;Purkayastha et al, 2015;Savory and Fortune, 2015;Bugge et al, 2017).…”

“…Its strengths lie in the fact that both service recipients and professionals working in the public sector perform as crucial players in the provision of solutions for defined problems in the field. Those individuals thus will have better insight to innovate and spur development of precisely what they want (Andersen and Jansen, 2012;Wihlman et al, 2014;Scupola and Zanfei, 2016).…”

Employee-Driven Innovation: An Intervention Using Action Research

“…However, this participative, bottom-up process needs to be supported, recognized, and organized, and it has to be integrated with policies and top-down processes. But Wihlman, Hoppe, Wihlman, and Sandmark (2016) show that this is difficult: there are barriers to creating an innovative culture in the public sector, such as traditions, old structures, and a lack of communication.…”

“…This failure is more due to ineffective implementation of innovations than on the innovations per se. Lack of understanding around the innovation concept is a major hindrance to the implementation of the policies (Wihlman et al, 2016). For innovation to take place, new knowledge must translate into organizational learning and change (Brown & Duguid, 1991).…”