enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector

7/23/2019 Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector

1/28

http://aas.sagepub.com/Administration & Society

http://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0095399711418768

20112011 43: 842 originally published online 7 SeptemberAdministration & Society

Eva Srensen and Jacob TorfingEnhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Administration & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 7, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 14, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jan 2, 2012Version of Record>>

at BOGAZICI UNIV LIBRARY on January 3, 2013aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842http://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842http://www.sagepublications.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842.refs.htmlhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/05/0095399711418768.full.pdfhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/05/0095399711418768.full.pdfhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/09/0095399711418768.full.pdfhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842.full.pdfhttp://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/05/0095399711418768.full.pdfhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/11/09/0095399711418768.full.pdfhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842.full.pdfhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/8/842http://aas.sagepub.com/


2/28

Administration & Society43(8) 842868

2011 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0095399711418768

http://aas.sagepub.com

AAS 43 8 10.1177/0095399711418768Srensen and TorfingAdministration & Society 2011SAGE Publications

1Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

Corresponding Author:

Eva Srensen, Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University,

Universitetsvej 1, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Email: [email protected]

Enhancing Collaborative

Innovation in the

Public Sector

Eva Srensen1and Jacob Torfing1

Abstract

Encouraged by the proliferation of governance networks and the growingdemands for public innovation, this article aims to advance collaborativeinnovation as a cross-disciplinary approach to studying and enhancing pub-lic innovation. The article explains the special conditions and the growingdemand for public innovation, and demonstrates how it can be enhancedthrough multiactor collaboration. The case for collaborative innovation issupported by insights from three different social science theories. The theo-retical discussion leads to the formulation of an analytical model that can beused in future studies of collaborative innovation in the public sector.

Keywords

public innovation, collaboration, governance networks, metagovernance

Introduction

The recognition of the limits of traditional forms of topdown governmentin the face of the growing fragmentation, complexity, and dynamism of con-temporary societies has prompted the proliferation of interactive forms ofgovernance through networks and partnerships (Heffen, Kickert, & Thomassen,2000; Heinrich, Lynn, & Milward, 2009; Kooiman, 1993). Although inter-action between public and private actors is hardly a new phenomenon and

http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/


3/28

Srensen and Torfing 843

always has played a crucial role in policy implementation, networks andpartnerships are increasingly perceived as an effective and legitimate mode ofgovernance, especially when dealing with wicked problems (Koppenjan &Klijn, 2004; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Governments at multiple levels use dif-ferent kinds of governance networks as alternatives, or even supplements, totraditional forms of governance through hierarchy and markets (Hajer &Wagenaar, 2003; Marcussen & Torfing, 2007).

Over the last 20 years, the research on governance networks has beengrowing steadily and the analytical focus has gradually shifted (Srensen &Torfing, 2007). Thefirst generationof governance network research was pre-occupied with defining governance networks as a distinctive mode of gover-

nance, explaining the formation of governance networks, and describing theirrole and impact in different policy areas and at different regulatory scales(Kenis & Schneider, 1991; Marsh & Rhodes, 1992; Mayntz, 1993a, 1993b;Rhodes, 1997; Scharpf, 1994). Thesecond generationof governance networkresearch has further expanded the research agenda to include questions aboutthe sources of governance network failure, the role and impact of networkmanagement, and the normative outcomes of network governance (Benz &Papadopoulos, 2006; Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1997; Provan & Kenis,

2005). The assessment of the contribution of governance networks to thegoverning of contemporary societies has gained an increasing prominence(Srensen & Torfing, 2009), but the focus has mainly been on how governancenetworks enhance effective governance by combining authority and flexibil-ity (Provan & Kenis, 2008; Provan & Milward, 1995) and how they can spurdemocratic governance by enhancing participation, deliberation, and politi-cal empowerment (Klijn & Skelcher, 2007; Warren, 2009).

By comparison, the contribution of governance networks to the innova-

tion of public policies and serviceshas received much less attention amonggovernance network researchers, although the interest has recently surged(Considine, Lewis, & Alexander, 2009; Eggers & Singh, 2009; Hartley, 2005;Metze, 2010). Some researchers have talked about how governance networkscontribute to better coordination and conflict resolution, whereas othershave highlighted the role of networks in fashioning a more responsive problemsolving based on a broader knowledge base and mutual learning (Agranoff,2007; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004; Rhodes, 1997). However, although some ofthese arguments implicitly invoke concerns for public innovation, there arevery few explicit attempts in the literature on interactive forms of governanceto analyze the contribution of governance networks to public innovation(Bommert, 2010).

http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/


4/28

844 Administration & Society43(8)

The scant regard for the innovative capacity of governance networks issurprising because the role of networks for producing and disseminatinginnovation is well established in the social sciences (Freeman, 1991; Rogers,1962). In the field of institutional economics, there is an abundance of researchon how innovation can be enhanced through collaborative interaction facili-tated by more or less formal networks (Gloor, 2005; Powell & Grodal, 2004;Teece, 1992; S. Weber, 2003). By contrast, there are only a small number ofstudies that takes on the task of scrutinizing the role of multiactor collabora-tion for the enhancement of public innovation (Gray, 1989; Roberts & Bradley,1991; Roberts & King, 1996, Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman,2007). Moreover, in the few studies of public innovation that explicitly adopt a

network perspective, the analytical focus is most often on the implementationand dissemination of innovation through networks rather than on the collab-orative processes through which problems are framed and new solutions arecrafted and selected (Mintrom & Vergari, 1998; OToole, 1997).

The dearth of studies focusing on collaborative innovation in the publicsector is not least regrettable in the light of the increasing demand for publicsector innovation. Since the rise of the reinventing government movement(Osborne & Gaebler, 1993), there has been a growing interest in public inno-

vation (Borins, 2001; OToole, 1997), and many Western governments havelaunched national programs aiming to enhance innovation in public servicesand regulation (Newman, Raine, & Skelcher, 2001). International campaignorganizations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) have also highlighted the need for public sector inno-vation (OECD, 2010).

Despite the growing interest in spurring innovation in the public sector, thecurrent understanding of the sources of public innovation is inadequate. As

such, most of the protagonists of public innovation tend to rely far too muchon the positive impact of technical inventions and scientific discoveries. Newinformation and communication technologies and new medical knowledgehave prompted numerous public innovations, but we must not forget that inno-vation is always driven by social and political actors who are facing specific

problems and demands and choose to exploit particular opportunities.Based on this recognition, the entrepreneurial role of different actors has

been highlighted. In his now classical study, Nelson Polsby (1984) focuses onthe entrepreneurial role of political executives who need to advance newideas as a part of constitutional routines and when competing for votes. Morerecently, the role of politicians in public innovation has been downplayed, butthe celebration of innovation champions has continued. As such, the New



5/28


Public Management literature has emphasized the entrepreneurial role ofpublic managers and private contractors responding to competitive pressures.HR managers and some European trade unions have highlighted the impor-tance of tapping into the ideas and resources of the employees. Finally, therehas also been a growing interest in user-driven innovation, where public man-agers and employees are supposed to learn from or about different user groupsto improve public services. However, despite the unique contributions of allthese different actors, public innovation is seldom the result of the individualefforts of singular actors (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). In most cases, public sec-tor innovation requires collaborative interaction between a host of different

public and private actors, including politicians, civil servants, experts, private

firms, user groups, interest organizations, and community-based associations(Borins, 2001). Unfortunately, there is hardly any recognition of the role ofcollaboration for reinvigorating the public sector.

To compensate the failure to appreciate and exploit the potential of multi-actor collaboration for spurring public innovation, this article aims to advancecollaborative innovation as a cross-disciplinary approach to studying andenhancing public innovation. Hierarchies might contribute to public innova-tion by establishing stable routines for adapting to new conditions and mobi-

lizing their vast amount of resources and expertise in processes of explorationand exploitation (March & Olsen, 1995) and the creation of quasi-markets inthe public sector is likely to enhance innovation through increased competi-tion and user orientation (Lubienski, 2009). However, a third source of publicinnovation is provided by network-based forms of collaboration, which mayeven compensate some of the deficiencies of hierarchies and markets. The

bureaucratic silos and narrow-minded professionals associated with publichierarchies and the failure of competitive markets to find favorable ways of

sharing the costs, risks, and benefits of innovation tend to stifle innovation,but these problems can be overcome by the formation of networks that facili-tate collaboration across organizational and institutional boundaries.

Governance networks do not always give rise to sustained collaboration,and collaboration does not always lead to innovation. However, when theright initial conditions are in place, the institutional design is appropriate, andthe collaborative process is properly facilitated, there is a good chance thatcollaborative innovation will be successful in breaking policy deadlocks andimproving public services (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Dente, Bobbio, & Spada,2005; Metze, 2010).

To advance collaborative innovation in the public sector, the section titledInnovation in the Public Sector discusses the special needs and conditions for

public innovation. The section titled Public Innovation Through Collaboration



6/28


defines the concept of innovation, identifies the key elements in innovationprocesses, and shows why and how collaboration can enhance innovation.The section titled Theories of Collaborative Innovation explores how dif-ferent social science disciplines support the idea of collaborative innovationand identifies their analytical contributions. Building on this analysis, thesection titled Analyzing Collaborative Innovation provides an analyticalmodel that may guide future studies of collaborative innovation in the publicsector. The conclusion summarizes the argument and calls for more empiricalresearch.

Innovation in the Public SectorIn the private sector, innovation in technology, production processes, and

products has since Schumpeter (1934) been perceived as a potent lever ofcost reduction, market expansion, and profit maximization. Although smalland medium-sized business firms are often benefiting from innovationsdeveloped elsewhere, many large enterprises have their own Research andDevelopment departments. In addition to in-house innovation, an increasingnumber of big companies form strategic alliances with other firms to exploit

complementarities in terms of knowledge and resources to enhance innova-tion (Powell & Grodal, 2004; Teece, 1992). Some large companies have evencreated external knowledge networks with users, scientific experts, and pub-lic authorities to help them in developing new and creative ideas (Nambisan,2008), whereas other companies use open-source to develop new prototypes(S. Weber, 2003).

In sharp contrast to the routinized and collaborative innovation practices inthe private sector, thepublic sectoris commonly associated with rule-bound,

bureaucratic silos characterized by red tape, inertia, and stalemate. As such, akey part of the neoliberal critique of the public sector has been to blame itfor not being sufficiently dynamic and innovative. The cure for this problemhas been a combination of deregulation, privatization, contracting out, andthe introduction of strategic management principles from the private sectorin the remaining public sector. However, despite the presence of a risk-aver-sive zero-error culture in some parts of the public sector, the neoliberalcritique of the public sector for being inhospitable to innovation is highlyexaggerated. In fact, there has been a lot of innovation in the public sector inthe postwar period. If we compare the form and content of public policies andservices of today with what was offered to us 40 to 50 years ago, it is clear thatthe public sector has undergone a dramatic transformation as a result of incre-mental and radical innovations. One has just to think of the significant changes



7/28


in areas such as social welfare, employment policy, environmental regulation,and health care.

Hence, the problem with innovation in the public sector is not so much theabsence of innovation but rather that most public innovations are episodicand driven by accidental eventsthat do not leave public organizations with alasting capacity to innovate (Eggers & Singh, 2009). As the analysis of appli-cations to the Ford Foundation innovation award program in the mid-1990sshows, public innovation is often a response to new legislation passed bynational governments, the heroic efforts of new leaders and executive manag-ers aiming to prove their worth, crises and scandals triggered by failures madevisible by the mass media or external performance reviews, spending cuts and

sudden changes in the demand for a program, and new opportunities providedby technological inventions (Borins, 2001). The accidental character of publicinnovation demonstrates the need for a new innovation agendathat aims to turninnovation into a permanent and systematic activity that pervades the entire

public sector.The call for a new innovation agenda in the public sector is motivated

by the growing demand for innovationin the public sector that emanatesfrom three mounting pressures. First of all, citizens and private firms have

rising expectations about the quality, availability, and effectiveness of publicservices, and they have growing demands for governments to be responsive(Vigoda-Gadot, Shoham, Schwabsky, & Ayalla, 2008). The demand for tailor-made services and flexible regulations is also on the rise (Bowden, 2005;Carter & Belanger, 2005). At the same time, public resources are limited due toa combination of structural and conjunctural factors. Given the labor-extensivecharacter of public service production, the public sector cannot produce thesame high-productivity gains as the wage-leading private sector. As a result,

wage payments become a growing fiscal burden in public sector. In addition,the economic recession following in the wake of the global credit crisis hasput severe strains on public finances. The combination of rising demands andresource constraints clearly generates a need for new and smarter solutionsthat can help to satisfy new demands without increasing public expenditure.

Second, professionals, public managers, and elected politicians have grow-ing ambitions in terms of the quality of public governance and its ability tosolve social, economic, and environmental problems. As such, governments atdifferent levels aim to deliver a more effective, responsible, flexible, targeted,efficient, and holistic form of governance. At the same time, society is becom-ing increasingly difficult to govern due to the growing complexity and frag-mentation of social, political, and economic processes (Kooiman, 1993).Globalization further accelerates this problem by expanding the spatial and



8/28


temporal horizons for strategic action (Jessop, 2002). The attempt to close thegap between the official governance ambitions and the actual performance of

public policy programs calls for innovation.Third, public policy researchers tend to agree that a growing number of

public policy tasks involve wicked problems that are ill-defined, difficult torespond to, require specialized knowledge, involve a large number of stake-holders, and carry a high potential for conflicts (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004).The need for policy instruments that can enhance sustainable development,reduce lifestyle-related illnesses and augment public safety is a case in

point. These wicked policy problems cannot be solved simply by throwingmore money or standard solutions at them; rather, they require innovative

policy solutions.The urgent need for public innovation should not blind us to the fact that

the public sectorin its classical, bureaucratic formcontains a number ofbarriers to public innovation(Halvorsen, Hauknes, Miles, & Rste, 2005;Rste, 2005). As such, it is often asserted that the strong adherence to legaland bureaucratic rules and the lack of competition and economic incentivesin terms of patents and bonus payments tend to stifle public sector innovation(Borins, 2001; Kelman, 2005). Another problem is that public services are

relatively complex, multifunctional, and based on statutory rights and, there-fore, difficult to alter without causing all kinds of problems (Hartley, 2005).A third problem is the proliferation of performance indicators that tend to

prevent innovation, especially when they are focusing on input and outputmeasures (Newman et al., 2001). Finally, the public sector is governed byelected politicians and public managers who are risk-aversive because fail-ures will often receive intensive media coverage that might ruin their careers(Borins, 2001).

That being said, we should remember that there are also important anddistinctive drivers of innovation in the public sector. The size of the publicsector and its ability to absorb the costs of failure might help to reduce risk-aversive behavior. Moreover, the recent introduction of competitive pressures,strategic management, and a more rigorous measuring of outcomes tends toforce public agencies to change established rules, norms, and routines. Assuch, there is no doubt that New Public Management has spurred public inno-vation, despite the backdrops mentioned above. However, the most importantdrivers of public innovation relate to the actors involved in public governanceand service production. Politicians can make a political career on the basis ofnew and successful innovations. Public managers and employees are relativelywell-educated people who are driven by professional values and ambitions that

prompt them to improve the content and performance of the programs that



9/28


they are responsible for. In fact, the new innovation agenda provides a goldenopportunity for public employees to mobilize their professional knowledgeand competence that recently has been suppressed by New Public Managementreforms aiming to enforce rigid performance standards. Last but not least,the customers in terms of users of public services are much more activelyengaged in raising demands, providing critical feedback, and coproducingsolutions than the customers in private markets.

Public Innovation Through Collaboration

Innovation is an elusive concept (Lloyd-Reason, Wall, & Muller, 2002) that

often lacks a precise definition, and with the growing attention that it receivesin the public sector, there is a risk that the notion of innovation looses itsdistinct meaning and becomes synonymous with reform, change, andnew ideas. Therefore, we should begin our endeavor to enhance collabora-tive innovation by offering a rigorous definition of innovation.

Innovation is often defined in catchy phrases such as new ideas that work(Mulgan & Albury, 2003) or new stuff that is made useful (McKeown, 2008).Although such definitions might capture the gist of the concept, we shall here

provide a more elaborate definition that clarifies some of the intriguing ques-tions that surrounds the concept of innovation. Here, innovation is defined asan intentional and proactive process that involves the generation and practi-cal adoption and spread of new and creative ideas, which aim to produce a

qualitative change in a specific context.

Unpacking this dense definition of innovation will help to demonstratehow it sides with some analytical positions rather than others. First of all, thedefinition maintains that innovation involves intentional and proactive action.

The process of innovation is an open and unpredictable process that mightinvolve several chance discoveries. Nevertheless, it is based on intentionalactions through which different actors aim to respond to problems andchallenges or to exploit new opportunities. Innovation involves a deliberateattempt to change, or even improve, the current state of affairs in the light of

present and future demands, but when multiple streams of problems, solu-tions, and events are connected and worked on (Kingdon, 1984), the finalresult becomes a mixture of intended and unintended outcomes

Second, the definition makes it clear that innovation is not merely aboutgetting a new idea. To come up with a new and promising idea, and thus tomake an invention, involves creativity, but creativity only becomes innovationwhen the creative idea is exploited in practice and, therefore, is capable of



10/28


producing some significant effects. In short, innovation is defined as creativityplus exploitation (Mulgan & Albury, 2003).

Third, although innovation aims to bring about change, we are talking abouta particular kind of second or third-order change (see Hall, 1993). Innovation isnot about producing and delivering more or less of the same kind of goods,services, or solutions (first-order change) but rather about changing theform, content, and repertoire of goods, services, and organizational routines(second-order change) or transforming the underlying problem understand-ing, policy objective and program theory (third-order change). In short, inno-vation involves the production of qualitative rather than quantitative change(Slappendel, 1996). There is no objective way of determining the amount of

qualitative change that is needed in order for a transformation to qualify asan innovation. Too much depends on the subjective perceptions of situatedactors. However, as a rule of thumb, qualitative changes will tend to chal-lenge conventional wisdoms and sedimented practices.

Fourth, the above definition insists that innovation is always relative to aspecific context. Innovation brings about something new. However, the newis not necessarily novel to the world but merely perceived to be new in par-ticular contexts or domains (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973). Even if a

new and promising idea or practice has been adopted before, or in anotherplace, the adoption of the very same idea or practice in a different institu-tional context or domain clearly qualifies as an innovation (Hartley, 2005).

Not only will the adoption of a new idea or practice in a different organiza-tional context result in a qualitative transformation of the new context, butthe process of transferring ideas and practices always involves a context-dependent selection, combination, translation, and modification of the orig-inal concept (Rvik, 1992).

Fifth, although innovation carries a positive connotation, the definitionpresented above does not include anything about whether the consequences ofan innovation are good or bad (Hartley, 2005). However, we may talk aboutsuccessful innovations in terms of innovations that are perceived to lead to adesirable result in the eyes of the stakeholders. Ideally, the outcome of publicinnovation should correspond with the preferences of the elected politicians,make life easier for the public employees, and create higher user satisfaction.In real life, however, politicians, public managers, street-level bureaucrats,and users often evaluate the outcome of public innovation in different ways.The different evaluations do not only reflect the relative gains of the actors

but also the fact that innovation can serve different purposes. As such, publicinnovation can either improve efficiency, effectiveness, job satisfaction, or



11/28


the quality of public services, and there are crucial trade-offs between thesedifferent objectives.

Innovation is a complex, nonlinear, and iterative process. However, asshown in Figure 1, we can identify four constitutive phases in the innovationcycle (Eggers & Singh, 2009).

Generation of ideas. This involves the development, presentation, and cross-fertilization of ideas, but the generation of ideas presupposes the identificationof problems and opportunities, the clarification of relevant goals and values,and the questioning of long-held assumptions.

Selection of ideas. This involves decisions about ideas that are worth pursu-ing. Ideally, ideas should be big, bold, and transformative, and at the same time,feasible, flexible, and broadly accepted among the key stakeholders. As such,negotiation, compromise formation, and conflict settlement are key features of

the idea selection.Implementation of new ideas. This involves conversion of ideas into newprocedures, practices, and services. Changing existing patterns of behavior isa difficult task that requires the exercise of leadership, the construction ofownership, and the creation of positive incentives. As many things can gowrong in the implementation phase, public innovators must be prepared todeal with uncertainties, unforeseen problems, and temporary setbacks.

Dissemination of new practices. This involves the spread of innovationthroughout an organization or from one organization to another. Spreadinginnovative practices requires highlighting the gains obtained by first movers,establishing contacts to potential followers, overcoming standard objectionssuch as we do not need any changes and this is not invented here, andadopting innovative concepts to new and different circumstances.

Implementation

of new ideas

Dissemination of

new practices Generation

of ideas

Selection

of ideas

Figure 1.The innovation cycle



12/28


The four phases do not always follow neatly after each other, but are oftenrearranged, combined, mutually integrated, and repeated in and through aseries of complex feedback loops (Van de Ven et al., 2007). However, the four

phases are key components in the complex, nonlinear, and often messy pro-cesses of innovation.

With this in mind, we can now advance our main claim, which is that eachof the constitutive phases in the innovation cycle can be strengthened throughcollaborationbetween relevant and affected actors from the public and privatesector. Our first proposition is that the generation of ideas is spurred whendifferent experiences and ideas are circulated, challenged, transformed, andexpanded through multiactor collaboration that facilitate mutual learning. Oursecond propositionis that theselection of ideasis improved when actors withdifferent perspectives and forms of knowledge participate in a joint assess-ment of the content and the potential gains and risks of competing ideas. Inaddition, collaborative interaction will facilitate the formation of compromiseand agreement, so that stalemates are prevented and the role of veto playersis mitigated. Our third propositionis that the implementation of the selectedideas is enhanced when collaboration creates joint ownership to new and boldinitiatives, so that implementation resistance is reduced. Collaboration in the

implementation phase also helps to mobilize resources, ensure flexible adjust-ments, and compensate eventual losers. Ourfinal propositionis that the dis-semination of innovative practices in the public sector is propelled by theformation of social and professional networks. Networks with strong tieshave a short reach but provide a strong mutual support, whereas networks withweak ties have a longer reach but a high potential for disseminating novelideas (Granovetter, 1973).

The positive impact of collaboration on innovation is not only confirmed

in studies of innovation in private firms (Powell & Grodal, 2004) but also inempirical analyses of public sector innovation. Hence, a meta-analysis ofstudies of organizational innovation shows that diversity among the involvedactors and a high level of internal and external communication has a positiveimpact on innovation in both public and private organization (Damanpour,1991). Moreover, the analysis of innovative projects submitted to a nationalinnovation award program in the United States reveals that 60% of the proj-ects were generated through interorganizational collaboration (Borins, 2001).

A number of qualitative case studies confirm the conclusion about the posi-tive impact of collaboration on public innovation. First, the analysis of stake-holder collaboration in the area of school policy at the state level shows thatcollaboration has a positive impact on policy innovation, although the partici-

pants in the collaborative process were constrained by their constituencies



13/28


resulting in an incremental rather than radical innovation (Roberts & Bradley,1991). Second, a comparative case study of urban development finds that theinnovative capacity in Turin has been much larger than in Milan and explainsthis in terms of the higher diversity and density of the governance network inTurin (Dente et al., 2005). Finally, a comparative case study from Britain con-cludes that local authorities with weak interagency and stakeholder networkstend to have less extensive patterns of innovation (Newman et al., 2001).

However, just as social and political actors will not always collaborate,collaboration will not always produce public innovation. As such, repeatedcollaboration in closed and stable networks that over time have developedmore or less the same worldviews will tend to stifle creativity and prevent

innovation (Skilton & Dooley, 2010). Power asymmetries in collaborativearenas may prevent certain groups of actors from voicing their opinion and

bringing new ideas to the table (Torfing, Srensen, & Fotel, 2009). Networkssometimes create problems when trying to implement innovations because ofthe heightened level of uncertainty and the incomplete institutionalizationthat both tend to diminish trust and short-term efficiency (OToole, 1997).Finally, the diffusion of innovations can be prevented by the presence ofstructural holes that emerge when actors who could benefit from commu-

nication are not connected (Burt, 1992) or by the lack of homophily thatoccurs when people communicate with someone whom they feel are too dif-ferent from themselves (Rogers, 1962).

Nevertheless, with the right kind of institutional design and management,collaboration can be a crucial source of innovation in the public sector (Bland,Bruk, Kim, & Lee, 2010; Metze, 2010; Newman et al., 2001; OToole, 1997).Therefore, we need to explore the differentstrategies for collaborationthat

public agencies may use to spur innovation. For this purpose Bill Eggers and

Shalabh Singh (2009) provide a helpful overview of five different collabora-tive strategies: (a) The cultivation strategy aims to facilitate collaborationbetween different kinds of public employees, so that they can exchange anddevelop new ideas and test them in their everyday working life; (b) The rep-lication strategyaims to foster collaborative relationships with other publicagencies to identify, translate, adapt, and implement their best and most suc-cessful innovations; (c) The partnership strategy aims to develop and testnew and creative ideas through collaboration between public and private

partners, which have different rule and resource bases; (d) The networkstrategyaims to facilitate the exchange of ideas, mutual learning, and jointaction through horizontal interaction between relevant and affected actorswho have different kinds of resources and expertise; and (e) The open-sourcestrategyaims to produce innovation by using the Internet to invite unknown



14/28


cocreators from around the world to help solving a specific problem. It goeswithout saying that the choice between the different collaboration strategiesdepends on the time and place, the character of the innovation challenge, andthe experiences and capacities of the public agency aiming to facilitate col-laborative innovation.

Theories of Collaborative Innovation

The theoretical advances within different fields of study help to pave the wayfor the development of an interdisciplinary framework for studying collab-orative innovation in the public sector. Three fields of study are particularly

interesting in this regard: economic innovation theory that focuses on innova-tion in private firms and industries, sociological planning theory that focuses

physical planning in urban and rural areas, and public administration theorythat aims to understand the changing conditions for public governance. Theintellectual developments in these three fields have over time come to empha-size the role of collaboration for the enhancement of innovation. At the sametime, the three bodies of theory offer complementary insights into collabora-tive innovation.

Economic Innovation Theory

The intellectual development within economic innovation theory can bedivided into three phases. In thefirst phase, Joseph Schumpeter (1934, 1946)and his followers study the role of the individual and collective entrepreneursin product or process innovation within private firms (Hagedoorn, 1996).Innovation is defined as new combinations and is a result of a supply-

driven process through which entrepreneurs, who are neither inventors norowners, engage in creative labor. With the advent of monopoly capitalismand large corporations, the individual entrepreneur is transformed into a col-lective entrepreneur who exploits technological possibilities through theexpansion of a cooperative entrepreneurship. In thesecond phase, the focusis directed toward interorganizational collaboration between different pri-vate firms (Teece, 1992) and between private companies and public author-ities and knowledge producers (Lundvall, 1985). The innovative potentialsof industrial districts and clusters are emphasized, and the impact of nationaland regional systems of innovation is highlighted (Edquist & Hommen,1999). The third phaseis marked by a growing interest in how collaborativeinteraction between private firms and their users can spur innovation (VonHippel, 2005).



15/28


The theoretical development in economic innovation theory has to anincreasing extent seen innovation as a function of multiactor collaboration.The cooperative and systemic approach to innovation does not only chal-lenge the idea that innovation is a result of cutthroat competition but also thelinear and supply-driven models of innovation according to which scientificdiscoveries lead to the development of new technology which in turn satis-fies new and emerging market needs. Hence, innovation is seen as a result ofcollaborative interaction in complex networks with numerous feedback loopsthat take into account the new and emerging demands of private firms andtheir customers (Edquist & Hommen, 1999). The new theoretical approach toinnovation in firms and industries grants public authorities a proactive role in

facilitating the emergence of institutional designs that promote innovation bycreating and sustaining relationships of interdependence, interaction, andcommunication. However, the key contribution of economic innovation the-ory is the demonstration of the limits of competition and the value of trust-

based collaboration, even among potential competitors, together with theidea that users can provide an important input to innovation processes (Teece,1992). The emphasis on how innovation can be spurred by complex systemsof interaction among users, producers, scientists, and public authorities is an

important source of inspiration for the development of a theory of collabora-tive innovation in the public sector.

Sociological Planning Theory

Theories of public planning have been on a similar journey. Traditional plan-ning theorywas based on the assumption that it is possible to create growthand development in urban and rural areas by formulating and implementing

rational and comprehensive long-term plans with the character of blueprints.Such plans would be crafted on the basis of scientific expert knowledgeand the use of linear extrapolations of economic and demographic trends(Davidorff & Reiner, 1962; Friedman, 1987). From the 1970s onwards, thisassumption was subjected to a growing critique because the long-term plansseldom produced the predicted outcomes. The increasing number of planningfailures was caused partly by the fierce resistance from the local citizens andother lay actors, who did not have any ownership to the master plans and thenew development projects, and partly by the fact that the blueprints did nottake the local conditions and dynamics sufficiently into account (Sager,1994). The critics claimed that social and physical planning had to involvelocal citizens and key stakeholders and make systematic use of the practicalknowledge that these actors possess. In many countries, this critique led to



16/28


the establishment of formal procedures for citizen involvement in publicplanning through hearings and town meetings. A participatory and delibera-tive element was added to the traditional planning model.

The most recent planning theorytakes a step further in its critique of thetraditional planning philosophy. As such, it concurs that we must give up thevery idea of rational and comprehensive long-term plans aimed at program-ming future developments and replace it with a more realistic understanding of

planning in terms of an articulation of multiple and decentered transformationprocesses that create a continuous coordination and overall direction in a frag-mented and emerging development process (Sievert, 2007). Such a planning

process, which Patsy Healey (2007) denotes strategic planning, requires the

establishment of a plurality of flexible connection points and overlapping gov-ernance processes. Empirical studies show that the innovative capacity of stra-tegic planning processes depends on the inclusion of a diversity of social and

political actors who are linked through networks with a high density (Denteet al., 2005). Like the new economic innovation theories, the new planningtheories also emphasize the role of properly facilitated collaboration anddeliberation for the production of innovative solutions in land-use planning(Booher & Innes, 2010; Metze, 2010). However, they also draw our attention

to how difficult it is to reach an agreement about the common goals of com-plex transformation processes in general and innovative planning processes inparticular. Innovation designs can be accelerated through a discursive framingof collaborative interaction, but it is impossible to determine in advance wherethe process will end and what the outcomes will be (Fischer & Forester, 1993).As such, the key contribution of planning theory to a theory of collaborativeinnovations lies in its emphasis on the open-ended and dynamic character of

public innovation processes.

Public Administration Theory

Public administration theory has for a long time been occupied by the ques-tion of societal change, but the focus has been directed toward the transfor-mation of public organizations and public governance. However, traditionalpublic administration theorywas mostly interested in identifying modes ofgovernance and organizational principles that could create a stable and legiti-mate rule, fair and predictable decisions, efficient governance, and topdowncontrol. Max Webers (1978) ideal-typical model of bureaucracy allegedlydelivers on all counts due to its legalrational foundation, rule-governed prac-tices, horizontal division of labor, and hierarchical decision-making structure.Although Weber perceives stability as the main objective of public organizations,



17/28


Anthony Downs (1967) tends to conceive the high degree of stability in publicbureaucracies as a perennial problem because it prevents a dynamic adaptationof the public sector to societal changes and new conditions for public gover-nance. According to Downs, public bureaucracies tend to become bigger and

bigger, and large-scale public bureaucracies have great difficulties bringingabout change because they spend all their energy and resources on internalcoordination and external boundary wars. In Downs own words, public

bureaucracies become increasingly ossified.This criticism of public bureaucracies was a key driver in the development

ofPublic Choice theory(Niskanen, 1987) and the tidal wave ofNew PublicManagement reformsthat from the late 1980s onwards have aimed to reduce

and transform the public sector (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). The key ambitionof New Public Management was partly to increase the use of market-drivengovernance mechanisms based on competition and free consumer choice tocreate a more dynamic and flexible public sector, and partly to develop newand more effective forms of public management based on performance con-tracts and performance-related salaries that aim to enhance the motivationand entrepreneurial spirit of the public managers and their employees (Hood,1991). However, seen from a public innovation perspective, New Public

Management has two clear limitations: (a) It builds on a dogmatic assertionthat the main source of efficiency-enhancing innovation comes from imitationof the competitive logic in private sector and (b) it places the responsibilityfor public sector innovation solely in the hands of the public managers.

Building on this criticism, the new theories of governance networksrecom-mend that we take a more open and relational approach to the question of how

public innovation is enhanced. The new governance network theories devel-oped in response to the growing complexity of modern society, and they claim

that public innovation can be enhanced through collaboration as well as com-petition (Kickert et al., 1997). As such, there are a host of actors such as publicmanagers, street-level bureaucrats, private stakeholders, and users who arecapable of providing important inputs to public innovation processes (Hartley,2005; Vigoda, 2002). As such, the role of public managers is not to produce

public innovation all by themselves but rather to create, institutionalize, andmanage open and flexible arenas for collaborative interaction with otherrelevant and affected actors (Nambisan, 2008). This kind of facilitating net-work management that aims to provide a political, institutional, anddiscursive framework for collaborative innovation is exactly what thenew theories of network governance denotes metagovernance (Jessop,2002; Srensen & Torfing, 2007, 2009). Metagovernance is defined asthe regulation of self-regulation, and it is here that public administration



18/28


theory can make a special contribution to a theory of collaborativeinnovation. Collaborative innovation in and through governance networksmust be carefully metagoverned to spur public innovation.

In sum, our analysis has shown that the intellectual development withineconomic innovation theory, planning theory, and public administration the-ory contains a growing appreciation of multiactor collaboration as a source ofinnovation, and together, the three bodies of theory provide an interdisciplin-ary framework for further analysis of collaborative innovation.

Analyzing Collaborative Innovation

Despite the theoretical underpinning provided in the previous section, there isno commonly accepted theoretical framework for analyzing collaborativeinnovation in the public sector. As a first step in developing such a framework,we shall provide a simple analytical model that may stimulate academicdebates and inform empirical studies in the future. The model is inspired

by the model of collaborative governance advanced by Chris Ansell andAllison Gash (2007) and the Institutional Analysis and Development frame-work elaborated by Ostrom, Gardner, and Walker (1994). As indicated in

Figure 2, the underlying assumption is that collaborative innovation pro-cesses, which produce public innovation outputs that can be evaluated in dif-ferent ways, are imbedded in institutional arenas of interaction that provide acontingent set of drivers and barriers that facilitate and hamper collaborationand innovation. The institutional arenas of interaction, and thus the processesof collaborative innovation, are shaped by pregiven initial conditions and

proactive forms of metagovernance.The model displayed in Figure 2 aims to map the interplay between the

different factors that may lead to the production and dissemination ofpublicinnovation outputs. Public innovation includes product and service innova-tion, process innovation, organizational innovation, policy innovation, andsymbolic/rhetorical innovation (Hartley, 2005). The different kinds of publicinnovation may have an incremental or radical character (Roberts & Bradley,1991), and their scope may be limited to a particular public organization ormay embrace several organizations and policy areas.

Public innovation outputs may produce different outcomes that can beevaluated by a range of different actors who will apply competing standards,use different methods, and arrive at different results as to the desirability of

public innovations. The evaluationof the public innovation outcomes mayeither spur the dissemination of best practice or stimulate the search fornext practice in terms of a creative development of future practices.



19/28


Initial conditions

Macro

Meso

Micro

Metagovernance

Hands-off

Hands-on

Public innovation

outputs

Policy

Organizational

Service

Evaluation Standards

Method

Results

Discursive

problematizationInstitutional arenas of

interaction

Collaborative

innovation processes

Empowered

participation

Mutual and

transformative

learning

Joint ownership

Drivers and barriers

Cultural

Institutional

Inter Organizational

Organizational

Identity related

Figure 2.Analytical model for studying collaborative innovation

Public innovation is a result of open-ended and nonlinear processes of col-laborative innovation. The study of theprocesses of collaborative innovationwill initially focus on the participation of empowered actors with differentidentities, roles, and resources (March & Olsen, 1995). The active participa-tion of politicians, administrators, experts, private organizations, and citizenscan be difficult to obtain and requires that the public and private actors canmake good sense of the transformative process, its purpose, and its underlying

premises (Wenger, 1998). However, it is not sufficient to study how the vari-ous actors are motivated to participate in communities of practice. We mustalso analyze the conditions for the emergence of collaboration and the condi-tions for collaboration to spur innovation processes. With regard to the latter,it is essential to study the processes of transformative learning. According toMezirow (2000), both instrumental and communicative learning may resultin an affirmative view of the world that tends to preserve status quo. Hence,critical reflection is a decisive condition for the development of transforma-tive learning processes that stimulate creative recombinations of old and newideas and practices. Critical reflection questions tacit assumptions, challengesacquired habits, and aims to toss metaphors that facilitate new interpretationsand new ways of making sense of the world. Finally, we should analyze theimpact of collaboration in terms of the development of a joint ownership to



20/28


new and bold ideas that will help to overcome implementation resistance andensure coordination and flexible adjustment of innovative practices. The par-ticipating actors ownership to new ideas and solutions depends on their active

participation in the innovation process, their ability to influence the process,and the responsiveness of the other actors (Skelcher & Torfing, 2010).

The extent to which interdependent actors collaborate and use collabora-tion as a vehicle for public innovation is conditioned by a number of context-

bound drivers and barriers that either stimulate or hamper the processes ofcollaborative innovation. (Halvorsen et al., 2005) Examples of potential driv-ers would be the construction of policy or service problems with a great senseof urgency, the presence of a strong interdependency between empowered

and committed actors, agreement on the overall mission and a high level ofmutual trust, and the likelihood of significant gains from public innovation.The potential barriers can be divided into the following: (a) cultural barriers

prevalence of a legalistic, zero-error culture and predominance of pater-nalistic professional norms; (b) institutional barriersstrong separation of

politics and administration and use of inappropriate designs for dialoguewith users; (c) interorganizational barrierspredominance of bureaucraticsilos, boundary wars, and groupthink; (d) organizational barrierslack of focus

on innovation and absence of procedures for exploration and exploitation;and (e) identity-related barriersthe identities of key stakeholders preventcollaborative innovation.

The processes of collaborative innovation are embedded in institutional are-nas of interactionthat can be analyzed as governance networks. The institu-tional arenas of interaction provide rules, norms, routines, cognitive scripts,and discourses that structure the actions of the social and political actors (March& Olsen, 1995) and create particular patterns of interaction that can be ana-

lyzed by Social Network Analysis (Considine et al., 2009). In relatively self-regulating partnerships and networks, the actors negotiate and amend therules of the game, and the institutional arenas may, therefore, be graduallytransformed in the course of interaction.

The attempt to create and sustain institutional arenas of interaction thatfacilitate collaboration and public innovation depends on a number of initialconditions. At the macro level, there might be different traditions for stake-holder involvement in different countries and in different parts of the publicsector. At the meso level, there will often be different legal and institutionalconditions for participatory governance in different policy fields. At themicro level, the presence of strong power resource asymmetries, the lack ofclear incentives, and negative past experiences with cooperation might pre-vent collaborative interaction (Ansell & Gash, 2007). Analyzing the impact



21/28


of the initial conditions is particularly important in comparative case studiesof collaborative innovation.

The institutional arenas and the drivers and barriers that they engender canbe transformed by proactive forms of metagovernance. Metagovernanceinvolves deliberate attempts to facilitate, manage, and direct more or lessself-regulating processes of collaborative interaction without reverting to tra-ditional statist styles of government in terms of bureaucratic rule making andimperative command (Jessop, 2002; Kooiman, 2003; Srensen & Torfing,2009). Metagovernance can help to stabilize the institutional arenas of inter-action and may also help to enhance drivers and remove barriers of collabora-tive innovation while respecting the tendentially self-regulating character of

the collaborative interaction processes. In principle, both public and privateactors can exercise metagovernance, but the legitimacy and special resourcesand capacities of public authorities give them a clear lead (Klijn & Koppenjan,2000). The exercise of metagovernance involves a combination of hands-offtools such as institutional design and network framing and hands-on tools suchas process management and direct participation (Srensen & Torfing, 2009).

The analytical model provides a heuristic tool for mapping the basicfactors and dynamics that condition and shape collaborative innovation in

the public sector. The connections between the different components are notdeterministic but rather aim to capture the conditions of possibility for spurring

public innovation. The model is simple, but it can be further expanded depend-ing of the problem or research question that is addressed.

Conclusion

The proliferation of interactive forms of governance through networks and

partnerships and the rising demands for public innovation have prompted ourattempt to advance collaborative innovation as a cross-disciplinary paradigmfor enhancing public innovation. We have in this article argued against theincreasingly fashionable attempts to highlight the role of particular innovationchampions and instead drawn attention to the large and relatively unexplored

potential for enhancing public innovation through networked collaborationof multiple stakeholders. As such, we have claimed that multiactor collabo-ration may facilitate the cocreation of new and promising ideas and forge a

joint ownership to these ideas so that they may be implemented in practiceand produce outcomes that are deemed valuable and desirable by the keystakeholders. To sustain this claim, we have shown that collaboration maystrengthen all parts of the innovation process and pointed out a number ofdifferent strategies for facilitating collaborative innovation. Our argument



22/28


contributes to the research on governance networks by pointing out thecapacity of governance networks to enhance public innovation, somethingthat has so far been neglected in the scientific literature. The research on

public innovation may also benefit from our explicit attempt to emphasize thepivotal role of multiactor collaboration and from anchoring the study of pub-lic innovation in the new research on governance and governance networks.Such an anchorage will enable students of public innovation to assess theimpact of different forms of network governance and to explore the role ofinstitutional design.

In the attempt to advance collaborative innovation as a new, interdisciplin-ary research field, we have shown how the intellectual developments within

three different social science disciplines tend to emphasize the role of collab-orative interaction for producing new and innovative solutions in the publicsector. We have also identified the specific analytical contributions of eco-nomic innovation theory, planning theory, and public administration theory.Moreover, building on these insights, we have elaborated and presented ananalytical model that may inform future studies of collaborative innovation inthe public sector. The analytical model highlights the importance of reflexiveand strategic forms of metagovernance that might be seen as a new and impor-

tant kind of innovation management.To expand and solidify the new collaborative approach to public innova-

tion, we need to conduct a broad range of empirical studies of collaborativeinnovation in different countries and policy areas and at different levels ofgovernment. Survey data will help us to explore the participation of differenttypes of actors in collaborative innovation and to analyze their perception ofthe drivers and barriers of collaborative innovation. Delphi studies may also

be used to establish a more nuanced picture of the typical drivers and barriers

and further explore the role of metagovernance and innovation management(Adler & Ziglio, 1996). However, qualitative case studies are required tofully understand the complex processes and causalities involved in the pro-duction of collaborative innovation and to appreciate the role of the socialand political actors different interpretations of the collaborative and innova-tive processes, outputs, and outcomes. Although individual case studies willfacilitate an in-depth analysis of how and under what conditions collaborativeinteraction enhance public innovation, comparative case studies will facilitatethe formulation and testing of more specific hypotheses and contribute to the-ory building. Case studies can be designed either as a backward mapping ofthe actors and collaborative processes that have produced a particular publicinnovation or as a forward mapping of the innovative outputs and outcomesthat may or may not result from more or less formal arenas of collaborativeinteraction.



23/28


The insights gained through a combination of quantitative surveys, Delphistudies, and qualitative case studies can be used in design experiments thataim to enhance collaborative innovation in public organizations through itera-tive cycles of diagnosis, intervention, and performance measurement. Designexperiments will be a valuable tool for producing situated knowledge of whatworks in particular contexts (John & Stoker, 2008). Such situated knowledgewill be greatly appreciated by the public and private stakeholder involved incollaborative innovation in the public sector.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,

authorship, and/or publication of this article:

The authors received funding to a large-scale project on Collaborative Innovation in

the Public Sector (CLIPS) from the Danish Council for Strategic Research.

ReferencesAdler, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds.). (1996). Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi method

and its application to social policy and public health. London, England: Kingsley.

Agranoff, R. (2007).Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice.Journal

of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543-571.

Benz, A., & Papadopoulos, Y. (Eds.). (2006). Governance and democracy. London,

England: Routledge.Bland, T., Bruk, B., Kim, D., & Lee, K. T. (2010). Enhancing public sector innovation:

Examining the network-innovation relationship.Public Sector Innovation Journal,

15(3), 1-25.

Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector.International Public

Management Review, 11, 15-33.

Booher, D., & Innes, J. (2010).Planning with complexity. London, England: Routledge.

Borins, S. (2001). Encouraging innovation in the public sector.Journal of Intellectual

Capital, 2, 310-319.

Bowden, A. (2005). Knowledge for free? Distributed innovation as a source of learn-

ing.Public Policy and Administration, 20, 56-68.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.



24/28


Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services:

Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors.Information Systems Journal,

15, 5-25.

Considine, M., Lewis, J., & Alexander, D. (2009).Networks, innovation and public

policy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and

invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of deter-

minants and moderators.Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.

Davidorff, P., & Reiner, T. A. (1962). A choice theory of planning. Journal of the

American Institute of Planners, 28, 11-39.

Dente, B., Bobbio, L., & Spada, A. (2005). Government or governance of urban inno-vation?DIPS, 162, 1-22.

Downs, A. (1967).Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the

demand side. Technology in Society, 21, 63-79.

Eggers, B., & Singh, S. (2009). The public innovators playbook. Washington, DC:

Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis

and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues.Research

Policy, 20, 499-514.

Friedman, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gloor, P. A. (2005). Swarm creativity: Competitive advantage through collaborative

innovation networks. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,

78, 1360-1380.Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter revisited.Industrial

and Corporate Change, 5, 883-896.

Hajer, M., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003).Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding

in the network society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic

policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25, 275-296.

Halvorsen, T., Hauknes, J., Miles, I., & Rste, R. (2005). On the differences between

public and private sector innovation.Publin Report, D9.

Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public service: Past and present.

Public Money & Management, 25, 27-34.

Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational

planning for our time. London, England: Routledge.



25/28


Heffen, O. van, Kickert, W. J. M., & Thomassen, J. A. (Eds). (2000). Governance

in modern society: Effects, change and formation of government institutions.

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Heinrich, C. L., Lynn, L. E., & Milward, B. (2009). A state of agents? Sharpening the

debate and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 3-19.

Hood, C. (1991). A public administration for all seasons? Public Administration,

69, 1-19.

Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

John, P., & Stoker, G. (2008). Design experiments: Engaging policy makers in the

search for evidence about what works.Political Studies, 57, 356-373.

Kelman, S. (2005). Unleashing change: A study of organizational renewal in govern-

ment. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kenis, P., & Schneider, V. (1991). Policy networks and policy analysis: Scrutinizing

a new analytical toolbox. In B. Marin & R. Mayntz (Eds.), Policy networks

(pp. 25-59). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag.

Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (Eds.). (1997).Managing complex

networks. London, England: SAGE.

Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston, MA:

Little, Brown.Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (2000). Public management and policy networks: Founda-

tions of a network approach to governance.Public Management, 2, 135-158.

Klijn, E.-H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: Compatible

or not?Public Administration, 85, 587-608.

Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993).Modern governance. London, England: SAGE.

Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London, England: SAGE.

Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. London,

England: Routledge.Lloyd-Reason, L., Wall, S., & Muller, K. (2002). Innovation and education policy in

SMEs: A Czech perspective.Education & Training, 44, 378-387.

Lubienski, C. (2009). Do quasi-markets foster innovation in education? A com-

parative perspective(OECD Education Working Paper No. 25). Paris, France:

OECD.

Lundvall, B. . (1985).Product innovation and user-producer interaction. Aalborg,

Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995).Democratic governance. New York, NY: Free Press.

Marcussen, M., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Democratic network governance in

Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. (Eds.). (1992). Policy networks in British government.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.



26/28


Mayntz, R. (1993a). Modernization and the logic of interorganizational networks. In

J. Child, M. Crozier, & R. Mayntz (Eds.), Societal change between markets and

organization(pp. 3-18). Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Mayntz, R. (1993b). Governing failure and the problem of governability: Some

comments on a theoretical paradigm. In J. Kooiman (Ed.),Modern governance

(pp. 9-20). London, England: SAGE.

McKeown, M. (2008). The truth about innovation. London, England: Prentice Hall.

Metze, T. (2010).Innovation Ltd. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon Academic.

Mezirow, J. (2000).Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in

progress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion.Journal

of Politics, 60, 126-148.Mulgan, G., & Albury, D. (2003, October). Innovation in the public sector (Work-

ing Paper, Version 1.9). Strategy Unit, UK Cabinet Office. Retrived from http://

www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/mathieson/mis524/resources/readings/innovation/

innovation_in_the_public_sector.pdf

Nambisan, S. (2008). Transforming government through collaborative innovation.

Washington, DC: Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Newman, J., Raine, J., & Skelcher, C. (2001). Transforming local government: Inno-

vation and modernization.Public Money & Management, 21, 61-68.Niskanen, W. A. (1987). Bureaucracy. In C. K. Rowley (Ed.),Democracy and public

choice(pp. 135-140). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). The OECD inno-

vation strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow. Paris, France: Author.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993).Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial

spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994).Rules, games and common pool resources.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.OToole, L. J. (1997). Implementing public innovations in network settings.Adminis-

tration & Society, 29, 115-138.

Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004).Public management reforms. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Polsby, N. W. (1984).Political innovation in America: The politics of policy initiation.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2004). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg,

D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation

(pp. 56-85). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2005).Modes of network governance and implications for

network management and effectiveness. Paper presented at the 8th Public Man-

agement Research Conference, University of Southern California.



27/28


Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, manage-

ment and effectiveness.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,

18, 229-252.

Provan, K. G., & Milward, B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational

effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1-33.

Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding governance. Buckingham, UK: Open University

Press.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in the general theory of planning.

Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

Roberts, N. C., & Bradley, R. T. (1991). Stakeholder collaboration and innovation.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 209-227.Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1996). Transforming public policy. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, E. M. (1962).Diffusion of innovation. New York, NY: Free Press.

Rste, R. (2005). Studies of innovation in the public sector: A theoretical framework.

Publin Report, D16.

Rvik, K. A. (1992). Institutionaliserede standarder og multistandardorganisasjoner.

Statsvetenskapelig Tidsskrift [Institutionalized standards and multi-standard

institutions], 8, 261-284.Sager, T. (1994). Communicative planning theory. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.

Scharpf, F. W. (1994). Games real actors could play: Positive and negative coordination

in embedded negotiations.Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 27-53.

Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Schumpeter, J. (1946).Economic theory and entrepreneurial history: Change and the

entrepreneur. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sievert, T. (2007).From an impossible order to a possible disorder in design of urbanlandscape(Working Paper). Aarhus, Denmark: Arkitektskolen Aarhus.

Skelcher, C., & Torfing, J. (2010). Improving democratic governance through institu-

tional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe.Regulation

& Governance, 4, 71-91.

Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative

abrasion.Academy of Management Review, 35, 118-134.

Slappendel, C. (1996). Perspectives on innovation in organizations. Organization

Studies, 17, 107-129.

Srensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds). (2007). Theories of democratic network gover-

nance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Srensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and demo-

cratic through metagovernance.Public Administration, 87, 234-258.

Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and innovation.Journal of Economic

Behavior & Organization, 18, 1-25.



28/28


Torfing, J., Srensen, E., & Fotel, T. (2009). Democratic anchorage of infrastructural

governance networks: The case of the Femern Belt Forum. Planning Theory, 8,

282-308.

Van de Ven, A., Polley, D., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (2007). The innovation

journey. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens and

the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62,

527-540.

Vigoda-Gadot, E., Shoham, A., Schwabsky, N., & Ayalla, R. (2008). Public sector

innovation for Europe: A multinational eight-country exploration of citizens per-

spectives.Public Administration, 86, 307-329.

Von Hippel, E. (2005). The sources of innovation. Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.

Warren, M. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Analysis,

3, 3-13.

Weber, M. (1978).Economy and society(Vol. 1). Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Weber, S. (2003). The success of open source. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973).Innovations and organizations. New York,

NY: Wiley.

Bios

Eva Srensen is professor in Public Administration at Department of Society and

Globalisation, Roskilde University, and director of a large-scale research project on

Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector (CLIPS). Her most recent publicationsinclude Theories of Democratic Network Governance, Palgrave, 2007 (coedited with

Jacob Torfing) and The Politics of Self-Governance, Ashgate, 2009 (coedited with

Peter Triantafillou).

Jacob Torfingis professor in Politics and Institutions, Department of Society

and Globalisation, Roskilde University, and director of Center for Democratic

Network Governance. His most recent publications include Theories of Democratic

Network Governance, Palgrave, 2007 (coedited with Eva Srensen) andInteractive

Policy Making, Metagovernance and Democracy, ECPR Pres, 2011(coedited with

Peter Triantafillou).

enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector

Documents