Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Innovation im öff. Sektor, PSI - Projektleiter, Legende: Ang=Frage…

- - - - organizational (structure + culture within; e. g. organizational slack resources; cf. table 5 p.12)
        
        Slack resources (time, money, ICT facilities)
        
        Leadership styles
        
        Degree of risk aversion/room for learning
        
        Incentives/rewards
        
        Conflicts
        
        Organizational structures
      - innovation (intrinsic attributes of an innovation; e. g. complexity of the i; cf. table 6 p.13)
        
        Ease in use of innovation
        
        Relative advantage
        
        Compatibility
        
        Trialability
      - individual/employee (e. g. empowerment; cf. Table 7, p.13)
        
        Employee autonomy (empowerment)
        
        Organizational position (tenure, mobility)
        
        Job-related knowledge and skills (professionalism)
        
        Creativity (risk-taking, solving of problems)
        
        Demographic aspects (age, gender)
        
        Commitment/satisfaction with job
        
        Shared perspective and norms
      - environmental (e. g. political mandates; cf. table 4, p.11)
        
        DiMaggio and Powell (1991): coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism
        
        environmental pressure such as media attention and political aspects are the most often mentioned (e.g. Borins 2000, 2001)
        
        participation in networks (also inter-organizational) with other partners and the adoption of their norms is frequently noted (e.g. Mintrom and Vergari 1998), which could also reflect a form of mimetic isomorphism.
        
        regulation: generally a barrier (e.g. Johns et al. 2006). However, Rogers-Dillon (1999) states this is oversimplistic
        
        competition with other organizations
    - - dogmatic assumption: centered on intrinsic innovation attributes (Rogers 2003)
    - - quite well covered
- - - - Effectiveness: 28% (increased: 27%; decreased: 1%)
      - Increased customer satisfaction: 5%
      - Increased efficiency: 10%
      - Private partners involved (6%)
      - Citizens involved: 5%
      - Other (safety, fairness, etc.): 6%
      - None mentioned: 40%
  - - - alignment of change with new structures, processes and change governance
    - - pressure for cost efficiency
      - privileged role of public managers tends to exclude the contribution of public employees, users and elected politicians
      - competitive spirit destroys rather mutual trust (which is sine qua non for collaborative innovation)
      - when a certain quantitative goal of service deliveries is required, but the innovative agency stops this delivery, because a new way substitutes it, the agency gets penalized for innovation
    - - strong participants might try to impose their solution; but leads to constraints by the others —> conflicts —> collaborative approach = better
      - some actors join to prevent or obstruct the outcome, cause they fear it; but majority will collaborate well according to Gray 1989
  - - - 1.efficiency + effectiveness combined ("more with less"): 42%
      - no goal mentioned: 35%
      - Tackling societal problems (e.g. addressing unemployment, overweight): 10%
      - Increasing customer satisfaction: 7%
      - Involving citizens: 6%
      - Involving private partners: 2%
- - - - user-view as prime source of innovation / generally the search for inspiration rather outwards than inwards the organization (Alam 2006; Von Hippel 2007)
      - Isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983)
      - central agencies within the public sector (Brown and Waterhouse in Osborne and Brown, 2013)
      - Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013 (Part V, Contribution 1)
        
        Polsby 1984: entrepreneurial role of political executives who need votes
        
        Hood 1991 (NPM): public managers and private contractors
        
        Kesting and Ulhøi 2010 (HR): employees
        
        inspired by Hippel 1988; brought by Røtnes and Staalesen 2009: user-driven innovation, meaning managers and employees get to understand the customer better and, thus, innovat
        
        Csikszentmilhalyi 1996: source seldom thx to a single actor —> collaboration (cf. also Borins 2001 p.312; definition of collaborative innovation on by Gray, 1989: 305)
  - - - Steering committee
      - change sponsor
      - change agent
      - work stream owners
    - - centrality
      - legitimacy
      - access to resource
      - organizational back-up
  - - - deep engagement of employees in the inno process
      - openness of managers to taking on new ideas from workers
      - ongoing competence development
      - life long leraning (LO, 2006; Høyrup and Møller 2012)
  - - - generation of ideas
      - Selection of ideas
      - Implementation
      - Dissemination of new practices
      - Torfing: every step of the cycle profits from exchange
        
        2 in particular: facilitated compromise-finding and risk of veto players mitigated
        
        3 in particular: enhanced through joint ownership of initiatives by reducing resistance
        
        4 in particular:
        
        strong tie networks have shorter reach but more mutual support and communication
        
        weak tie networks vice versa (Granovetter 1973)
- - - - (Kat) Meine Arbeit trägt zur Innovation in der Verwaltung bei
      - (Ang) I believe that one of my responsibilities is to continually look for new ways to improve the way we work.
      - (Ang) Ich treffe im Projekt manchmal Entscheidungen, die einen unsicheren Ausgang haben.
      - (Ang) Wenn im Projekt ein Fehler passiert, dann verfüge ich über den Spielraum, um ihn als Lernerfahrung zu verbuchen.
      - (Ang) d) Für das Projekt relevante Daten und Informationen fliessen durch verschiedene Quellen ins Projekt rein.
      - (Ang) Wir haben im Projekt Prozesse aufgestellt, die die systematische Berücksichtigung von Daten und Informationen unterschiedlicher Quellen ermöglicht.
      - (Ang) My agency inspires me to come up with new or better ways of doing things
      - (Ang) My agency recognises and supports the notion that failure is a part of innovation
    - - (Ang) My immediate supervisor encourages me to come up with new or better ways of doing things
      - (Ang) People are recognised for coming up with new and innovative ways of working
      - (Kat) In unserer Organisationseinheit wird die Fähigkeit zur Selbstreflektion für Führungspersonal als wichtig erachtet
      - (Kat) Die Führung unserer Organisationseinheit erkennt den Mehrwert von Kollaboration (mit internen wie auch externen Partnern) bei Innovationsprojekten
      - (Kat) Mein/e Vorgesetzte/r erkennt seine/ihre eigenen Schwächen und Stärken
      - (Kat) Bei Problemen ist mein/e Vorgesetzte/r offen für neue, unübliche Projektansätze
      - (Kat) Ich engagiere mich in stetigem Lernen bzw. Weiterbildungen
      - (Kat) Ich bin offen für die Umsetzung neuer, unüblicher Lösungen
      - (Kat) Ich plane Budget für mögliche Fehler ein
    - - (Ang) Im Projekt arbeiten Menschen mit sehr unterschiedlichen soziodemographischen/beruflichen/persönlichen Hintergründen zusammen.
      - (Ang) Ziel der Einbindung von Stakeholdern ist es [zutreffendes ankreuzen]:  Sie zu befähigen selbstorganisiert ein «common good» zu schaffen  Die selbsttragende Fähigkeit der Communiites zu erhöhen und die Abhängigkeit vom Staat zu reduzieren.  Die Reduktion von Kosten und die Erhöhung der Effizienz innerhalb des Staates.  Staatliches Handeln zu legitimieren.  Die Einhaltung von Gesetzen sicherzustellen
      - (Ang) Kreuzen Sie den Grad der Mitwirkung an, der am meisten auf Ihr Projekt zutrifft:  Die Stakeholder müssen die im Projekt getroffenen Entscheidungen hinnehmen.  Die Stakeholder werden über die im Projekt getroffenen Entscheidungen informiert.  Die Stakeholder werden zu den im Projekt zu treffenden Entscheidungen konsultiert.  Die Stakeholder wirken im Gegenzug für transaktionale Anreize im Projekt mit.  Es wird zusammen mit allen Stakeholdern ein gemeinsames Interesse ausgehandelt. Planung und Entscheidfindung erfolgt in geteilter Verantwortung.
      - (Kat) In unserer Organisationseinheit wird Kollaboration mit Externen als wichtig erachtet, um Innovation voranzutreiben
- - - - Bingham et al. 2005 in Brown and Waterhouse in Osborne and Brown, 2013
        
        deliberative democracy
        
        e-democracy
        
        public conversations
        
        budgets set trough participatory processes
        
        citizen juries
        
        collaborative policy making
        
        other types of dialogue-driven activities
    - - Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013 (Part V, Contribution 1)
        
        specific barriers: cf. to the right --> remedy = NPG
        
        framework for interdependent public and private actors, who are operating in a complex and fragmented world, engage in collaborative processes
        
        instead of intraorganizational, an interorganizational view
        
        focus on processes and outcomes, not input/output (Osborne 2006)
      - from Gray 1989; Straus 2002; Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Ansell and Gash 2008 in Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013 (Part V, Contribution 1)
        
        power asymmetries
        
        prevalence of mistrust
        
        opportunistic behaviour
        
        strategic and substantial uncertainty
        
        conflicting cognitive and discursive frameworks
        
        lack of leadership and facilitation
        
        different interests lead to solution of least common denominator to prevent conflicts (Scharpf 1994)
        
        actors who have always worked together —> have similar views (Skilton and dooley 2010)
        
        strategic uncertainty and the incomplete institutionalization ofcollaborative arenas may prevent an effective implementation of innovation ideas (O’Toole 1997)
        
        structural holes (= actors who would profit from communication are not connected) —> prevents dissemination (Burt 1992)
    - - according to Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013 (Part V, Contribution 1):
        
        governance networks (Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan 1997; Rhodes 1997; Sørensen and Torfin 2007)
        
        strong participants might try to impose their solution; but leads to constraints by the others —> conflicts —> collaborative approach = better
        
        some actors join to prevent or obstruct the outcome, cause they fear it; but majority will collaborate well according to Gray 1989
        
        intra- and interorganizational policymaking
        
        reason for existence: actors realize they can’t solve the problems themselves
        
        diversity among participants
        
        dispersion of power in organizational settings
        
        presence of internal and external communication (Damanpour 1991)
        
        cf. at the very bottom: each step of the innovation cycle profits from exchange in networks
    - - quantitative: Borins 1998; 2001 (cited in Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013, Part V, Contribution 1)
      - Roberts and Bradley 1991; Steelman 2010; Dente, Bobbio, Spada 2005; Newman, Raine, Skelcher 2001 (cited in Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013, Part V, Contribution 1)
    - - in Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013 (Part V, Contribution 1)
        
        Theorie of governance network (Sørensen and Torfing 2007; Bommert 2010)
        
        rational choice institutionalism
        
        normative institutionalism
        
        interpretative governance theory
        
        network management theory
        
        governmentality theory
  - - - Transformational
      - Transactional
      - Table 20.1 in Torfing in Osborne and Brown, 2013 (Part V, Contribution 1) [copied in Google Doc]
        
        bureaucratic
        
        NPM
        
        Collaborative innovation management
    - - Planning and identifying objectives for the change
      - Governance in place to support the altered arrangements
      - Committed leadership to guide the change
      - Informed stakeholders by consultative communication to participate and commit to change
      - Aligned workforce to ensure the new structures match workplace arrangements for employees
    - - reflexivity
      - flexibility
      - boundary spanning
      - open-mindedness
      - communicative skills
      - „trained facilitators“
      - organic leaders familiar with the stakeholders
      - managers will have to perform different functions relating to different challenges; you have to wear the right hat at the right moment
        
        stewards for exchange = meaning installing, maintaining, moderating the collaborative arena
        
        mediator to drive and facilitate collaboration between stakeholders
        
        catalysts to spur innovation; entrepreneurial leadership (Crosby and Bryson 2010; Morse 2010)
      - „Collaborative innovation management radically changes the role, orientation and practices of public managers [compared to NPM- and bureaucratic manager]“ p.310
    - - trust
      - new kinds of leadership
      - alternative arrangements and structures