Measuring innovation in the public sector

Abstract

There is sufficient evidence, drawn from surveys of innovation in the public sector and cognitive testing interviews with public sector managers, to provide basic recommendations for how to measure innovation in the public sector. The recommendations recognize the unique characteristics of the public sector and are intended to provide useful information for policy efforts to improve the innovative capabilities and innovation outcomes of public sector organizations. Important topics for measurement include the characteristics of survey respondents and their workplace, innovation drivers, resources for innovation, innovation processes and strategies, innovation outcomes, novelty of innovations, and obstacles to innovation. Although many proposed questions are similar to those included in the Oslo Manual guidelines for measuring innovation in the private sector, surveys of public sector innovation need to delve more deeply into innovation processes and strategies, particularly on how innovations are developed. We also recommend that public sector innovation surveys combine a subject-based method that asks about innovation activities in general and an object-based method that includes questions on a specific 'most important' or 'most recent' innovation. This hybrid approach can improve the accuracy of question responses and provide high-quality data for policy development.

User Innovation in the Digital Economy

“…The observation that these products are unmeasured contributions to consumer welfare appears in the literature [Brynjolfsson et al, 2018;Diewert et al, 2017;OECD, 2018a, p. 7] but the additional point made here is that while these products may or may not be product innovation, they are a starting point for user innovation which has not been explored. Innovation in other economic sectors is not part of official statistics although there have been surveys of household innovation documented by von Hippel [von Hippel, 1988[von Hippel, , 2005[von Hippel, , 2017 and of the public sector (general government sector plus government institutions) [Arundel, Huber, 2013;Arundel et al, 2016;Bloch, 2010aBloch, , 2010bBloch, , 2013Bloch, Bugge, 2013].…”

Innovation in judicial services: a study of innovation models in labor courts

“…Innovation represents new approaches to public action as well as the art of thinking of and developing ideas and actions in ways that are better than those that have been practiced in public administration in the past (Anttiroiko et al , 2011a, 2011b). There are various typologies of innovation, but these classifications almost always deal with organizational innovations and innovations in processes, marketing, communications or services (Bloch, 2010; OECD, 2005).…”

“…Various typologies and classifications have been formulated to analyze and explain the phenomenon of innovation using mainly the context of industrial organizations as a reference (Bloch, 2010; Gallouj and Savona, 2010a, 2010b; OECD, 2005). That is the reason, in identifying innovation in the judiciary in this work, we have chosen to use the models and principles related to innovation in services proposed by Djellal and Gallouj (2005) and Gallouj and Weinstein (1997), which point to the need to characterize the factors that make up the process of creating and delivering services.…”

Untitled

“…The observation that these products are unmeasured contributions to consumer welfare appears in the literature [Brynjolfsson et al, 2018;Diewert et al, 2017;OECD, 2018a, p. 7] but the additional point made here is that while these products may or may not be product innovation, they are a starting point for user innovation which has not been explored. Innovation in other economic sectors is not part of official statistics although there have been surveys of household innovation documented by von Hippel [von Hippel, 1988[von Hippel, , 2005[von Hippel, , 2017 and of the public sector (general government sector plus government institutions) [Arundel, Huber, 2013;Arundel et al, 2016;Bloch, 2010aBloch, , 2010bBloch, , 2013Bloch, Bugge, 2013].…”