Download WP6_Commitment 27_Arkadiusz Kowalski

I3U Commitment 27
“A – Public Sector Innovation Scoreboard
B – Research Programme on Public Sector and Social Innovation“
Venue: Vienna, I3U Project Meeting & Technical Workshop, 14-15.09.2015
Prepared by: WERI-SGH
This project is co-funded
by the European Union
Commitment 27
"Starting in 2011, the Commission will support a substantial research
programme on public sector and social innovation, looking at issues such as
measurement and evaluation, financing and other barriers to scaling up and
development. As an immediate step, it will pilot a European Public Sector
Innovation Scoreboard as a basis for further work to benchmark public sector
innovation. It will explore with Member States whether it is appropriate to bring
together new learning experiences and networks for public sector leaders at
European level."
Causal relationships reflecting the impact of
Commitment 27
H2: The use of good practice and benchmarking will result
in a better performance of institutions and organisations
limited
understanding of
the importance of
social and public
sector innovation
financing research
on social and public
innovation
dissemination of
know-how and
good practice
benchmarking
H1: Financing research on social innovation and
public sector innovation will facilitate the
dissemination of know-how and good practice
better performance
of institutions and
organisations
increased
competitiveness
H1: Financing research on social innovation and public sector innovation will
facilitate the dissemination of know-how and good practice
Concept of open innovation
• Innovation in the private sector is usually protected from copying by others.
• In the public sector, diffusion of innovation across the public (and private) organisations may
ensure a better use of public resources (Moore, 1995; Mulgan and Albury, 2003; Rolfstam et al., 2011).
Concept of innovation systems
Financing research on social innovation may :
• result in creating knowledge that produces positive externalities – creating new products,
processes, and ideas arising from novel and unanticipated combinations
• facilitate replication of findings
• rise the social value of knowledge by lowering the chance that it will reside with persons (or
groups) who lack the resources and ability to exploit it (for instance: Foray, 1995).
H2: The use of good practice and benchmarking will result in a better
performance of institutions and organisations
Knowledge management theory
 Using innovation awards results in a higher rate of cooperation among public agencies
(Borins, 2001)
 Benchmarking provides accessible knowledge base. It can also be used to improve
accountability and mitigate risk by making informed decisions, supported by access to
integrated, transparent information (West, 2005)
 Benchmarking motivates countries having poor results
(Kouzmin, A., Loffler, E., Klages, H., Korac-Kakabadse,1999, N. Jeffrey J. Dorsch, Mahmoud M. Yasin, 1998).
Indicators
Indicator
Source
Expenditure on research related to
social innovation
European Commission, DG 2010-2014
Research
EU 28
Number of implemented public sector OECD, European Commission 2014
innovations
www.oecd.org/governance/p
ublic-innovation
Mean rank of EU28(EU27) in The
The World Bank
2010-2013
Worldwide Governance Indicators
www.govindicators.org
(dimention Government Effectiveness
Mean rank of EU28(EU27) in Doing
The World Bank
2010-2014
Business
www.doingbusiness.org
EU 28
Mean rank of EU28(EU27) in the
Global Competitiveness Index (pillars
1, 2, 9, 12)
EU 28
World Economic Forum
www.weforum.org
Years
2010-2014
Coverage
EU 28
EU 28
Commitment 27 map
Commitment rationale
Solution
Main impact channels
Main area of impact
Indicators
Insufficient information
on legislation, barriers
and public procurement
linked to social
innovation, role of social
entrepreneurship and
networks of practitioners
Publishing thematic
reports on funding
and measurement of
social innovation,
dissemination of best
practice
Embeddedness:
Naming and shaming
Better understanding of
innovations in the public
sector
Economic:
Better performance of
institutions and
programmes
More effective public
spending in the field of
social economy
Improved business
environment
Reduction of cost of
public services / public
sector efficiency
Input measures:
A need for measurement
framework and
internationally
comparable indicators in
the field of social
innovations and public
sector innovations
Financing research on
social innovation and
its role in the society
and economy
Governance:
Guiding by common
principles,
Dissemination of the nowhow needed for innovation
and policy-making,
Benchmarking,
Transfer of good practice,
promotion of effective
instruments
Social:
Improved user access
to public information
Faster delivery of public
services
Enhanced participation,
empowerment
Enhanced awareness of
social innovation
Networking
Throughput measures:
Number of new research projects
/ publications / methodologies /
reports related to social
innovation and public sector
innovation
Increasing demand for
quality of public services
Need for efficiency gains
in the public sector
Implementation of a
measurement
method / creation of
European Public
Sector Innovation
Scoreboard
Resource allocation and
employment:
Mobilizing and pooling of
financial resources
Expenditure on research related
to social innovation
Output measures:
Number of implemented social
innovations
Number of innovations in the
public sector
Mean rank of EU28(EU27) in the
Doing Business ranking
Mean rank of EU28(EU27) in the
Global Competitiveness Survey
Outcome
Competitiveness
GDP
Innovation
Next steps
1.
Assessing the impact of knowledge dissemination and benchmarking on the performance of
institutions (public institutions and other organisations that supply some kind of public services).
2.
With respect to indicators in the Public Sector Innovation Scoreboard, there must be analysed in
detail:
3.
•
their relevance and possible use for assessing the impact of Commitment 27.
•
whether it is possible to use this set of indicators for a cross country analysis in order to
identify the factors responsible for the improvement in the scores of the selected countries.
A detailed qualitative analysis within case studies will:
• shed light on innovation processes in public sector organisations
• show how benchmarking (in this case the PSIS) can help governments implement innovations
• provide a descriptive analysis with contextual information which will complement the
quantitative data
• be used to verify the causal relationships between knowledge dissemination and/or
benchmarking and the innovative performance of institutions