Public Management Discretion and Public Management Decision to Engineering, Testing and Application of Legal Innovations

Abstract

The article is devoted to the topic of the significance and complexity of the managerial decision on the engineering, testing and application of legal innovations. In the author’s opinion, many problems of legal and legal-digital innovation are reduced to the ambiguity of their functional-target load and very high difficulty of confirming that they are really needed, to the extreme difficulty of predicting their implementation. And it is this that complicates the adoption of an appropriate managerial decision. Managerial decision on legal innovations, due to the crystallization of the substrate of managerial discretion in it, always entails a high responsibility for its adoption. The author points out that there are no unified generally recognized ways of operating activities in the field of legal innovation and management of the corresponding innovation process. But there are some general management principles and requirements that are quite transferable to this sphere. The author substantiates that with all the significant differences between the private market legal sector and the public administration sector, in making a decision on the development, testing and implementation of legal and securing legal and digital innovations, both managers — the head of a public authority and the head of a commercial firm — are placed in similar conditions. The author in his article articulates the problem of time resource, objectively required for what is presented as a “legal innovation” to really become a legal innovation and a good legal innovation. According to the author, legal innovation is not a quick process, and it is not a one-time phenomenon, but a responsible discretion in making the appropriate managerial decision — it is always objectively time-consuming. The author raises the question that any innovation, and legal innovation in particular, has its own life cycle, at the end of which it outlives itself, exhausts its potential for innovation. Although there are legal innovations that have transformed into legal axiomatics and traditional legal everyday tools. But in any case, we talk about legal innovations without disconnecting from time, from its flow, from the notches on its scale. The author declares the article as posing a scientific problem, but at the same time the author offers a conceptual answer to some of such questions.