The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy

Abstract

Governments are increasingly turning to public sector innovation (PSI) labs to take new approaches to policy and service design. This turn towards PSI labs, which has accelerated in more recent years, has been linked to a number of trends. These include growing interest in evidence-based policymaking and the application of 'design thinking' to policymaking, although these trends sit uncomfortably together. According to their proponents, PSI labs are helping to create a new era of experimental government and rapid experimentation in policy design. But what do these PSI labs do? How do they differ from other public sector change agents and policy actors? What approaches do they bring to addressing contemporary policymaking? And how do they relate to other developments in policy design such as the growing interest in evidence-based policy and design experiments? The rise of PSI labs has thus far received little attention from policy scientists. Focusing on the problems associated with conceptualising PSI labs and clearly situating them in the policy process, this paper provides an analysis of some of the most prominent PSI labs. It examines whether labs can be classified into distinct types, their relationship to government and other policy actors and the principal methodological practices and commitments underpinning their approach to policymaking. Throughout, the paper considers how the rise of PSI labs may challenge positivist framings of policymaking as an empirically driven decision process.

Experimenting with public sector innovation: Revisiting Gow for the digital era

“…Among the notable areas of change in the last thirty years is the precipitous decline in self‐reported innovations emerging from senior public servants and commissions of inquiry, and a large rise (by deduction, since it was not asked by Gow) in reported innovations emerging from think tanks and innovation labs or behavioural insights teams (BITs). This is consistent with scholars of think tanks (Heinrichs ) and BITs (McGann, Blomkamp, and Lewis ) who document their proliferation in the competition for ideas and influence in the public sector in recent years.…”

The Role of Public Innovation Labs in Collaborative Governance—The Case of the Gipuzkoa Lab in the Basque Country, Spain

“…The emergence of policy innovation labs has been associated with various trends [14], including growing interest in evidence-based policymaking [15] and the search for open government practices [16] to foster trust and transparency [17] (p.192). Contextual factors, such as the economic crisis, have pressured public sector institutions to search for more efficient public-service delivery models and practices [11].…”

“…That is, they are not designed to obtain short-term results nor to seek the re-election of their political and institutional representatives but to improve the well-being of citizens in the long term, which translates into the new institutionalisation of innovative policies and practices. Policy innovation labs are a response to the cross-cutting nature of contemporary policy and social challenges [14].…”

‘Come together?’ Citizens and civil servants dialogue and trust

“…The theoretical backdrop of our analysis is (1) theories of participatory, inclusive, and deliberative democracy that the political representation crisis has opened and draw attention about the need to look for new ways to involve citizens in public affairs (Accetti et al, 2016;Della Porta, 2013;Elster, 1998;Máiz, 2006;Waylen, 2015); (2) the studies of trust, the precondition for cooperative relationships which enables people to interact with others and suspend uncertainty (Güemes, 2016;Hardin, 1992;Herreros, 2004;Luhmann, 1979;Offe, 1999;Ostrom y Ahn, 2003, Pollitt et al, 2007Sztompka, 2000;Van de Walle and Lahat, 2012); (3) collaborative governance, the institutional response that includes dialogue and cooperation as organisational keys and new approach about public management (Aguilar Villanueva, 2006;Brugué, 2004;Jessop, 1996;Pollitt et al, 2007); (4) open institutions and labs as a new morphology, which involve ways of working that include learning and listening (McGann, Blomkamp, & Lewis, 2018;Mulgan, 2014;Tönurist, Kattel, & Lember, 2017).…”