Hi everyone
We’re the I-Gen team from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
I-Gen stands for ‘innovation generation’ and is our department’s innovation initiative that was launched on 7 May 2010, after extensive trials.
I-Gen encourages staff to come up with ideas that improve the way the department works and helps them drive their ideas forward.
It provides the support and tools to convert ideas into proposals, including a dedicated intranet site; networks of coordinators and mentors to help proponents of ideas; and links to relevant documents and websites.
Importantly, I-Gen is a systematic and coordinated approach to managing ideas. All the ideas that come through I-Gen are stored on the intranet site where everyone in the department can view them.
The advantages of this kind of ‘ideas repository’ is that it allows people to easily collaborate and work together on projects and it also avoids duplication of similar ideas.
Our colleagues have had some great ideas, ranging from very small schemes to improve communication between branches to larger projects that have involved working with industry to change importation procedures.
An I-Gen case study
One successful idea, progressed through I-Gen, was to improve the process of importing flower bulbs.
Each year, Australia imports nearly 100 million ornamental bulbs, mostly from approved sources, for commercial cut-flower production. For years, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) has inspected each consignment of bulbs many times which is time-consuming and costly.
An analysis of the data showed that no significant quarantine diseases had been found on the bulbs for more than five years. So, some AQIS staff used I-Gen to progress an idea to explore alternative import clearance procedures for certified ornamental bulbs.
AQIS and industry collaborated on this I-Gen project and came up with a new approach whereby importers and growers will keep detailed records of all bulb imports and their movements. AQIS will reduce the number of inspections and regularly audit the records to make sure they comply with the new arrangements. This improved process will begin in late 2010.
Everyone benefits—industry saves money and AQIS uses fewer resources while still effectively managing the quarantine risk.
This is just one of the many ideas that have come through I-Gen.
If you’d like to find out more about the principles and mechanics behind DAFF’s innovation initiative, feel free to contact us or comment below:
Brant Smith, Manager, I-Gen Team
tel: (02) 6272 3515 or email brant.smith@daff.gov.au
or
Helen Bailey, Assistant Manager, I-Gen Team
tel: (02) 6272 5760 or email helen.bailey@daff.gov.au
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
loading...
Impressive site!
I work for the Canadian government in a newly created position designed to promote innovation within Canada’s Department of Environment. I have spent the last little while getting acquainted with innovation generally only to discover how little practical advice there is on the subject from a public sector perspective. This is why I found Australia’s new public service innovation action plan and web site such a great source of info. However, while there are many ideas about what sorts of things to do, there is little expressed about HOW to do them and WHEN to do them (i.e., what order). And so I wanted to get a bit more of the back story from those who promoted innovation within their own organizations. In other words, once the case is made to senior management that innovation is important and “buy-on” achieved, what happens next? What were the ...
... first things DAFF did? For example, did you first establish a working committee to clarify definitions and make concrete recommendations back to senior management for systemic change? Did you start by embedding innovation within strategic and business planning or did you simply start incrementally on a project-by-project basis? Basically, I’m looking for which steps were taken to implement the many ideas laid out on the web site and any lessons learned about how they were taken.
Again – great work Australia!
loading...
What happens if an idea comes through and you don’t have the technical resources for? Is this where you’d sponsor whoever came up with the idea and support them to acquire whatever is required? And what happens if you do have the technology, but it’s a poor tool for the job? Would the person/group be forced to use the technology that works yet not ideal, or would there be support for identifying the right tool for the job?
loading...
Hi Shawn. I’d suggest that most out-of-the-box ideas would require the business to obtain resources beyond what is currently available.
It’s pretty simple…if the idea has been assessed against business imperitives and deemed as a viable opportunity, the next steps are:
RR – recognise the efforts of the idea initiator for raising the idea.
>agree who is accountable to delivery moving the idea through the process.
>define the opportunity. Clarify and articulate to decision makers/wallet holders to secure funding and commitment to take it to the next phase.
RR – provide an update, or engage the idea initiator.
>Use data to determine the size of the prize and the resources required to deliver and the ROI (at this atge, all high-level stuff). If they like the potential, move to the next step.
>Validate all the assumptions from the previous phase and identify precise costs, resource requirements and timeframes. This is where you developed a detailed case for ...
... change. Back to execs; if they still like it, they’ll fund it, as long as they can see evidence that you’ve done your homework.
RR – update or engage the idea initiator.
>Implement the solution/s with the tech/people/money you’ve obtained through all that detailed analysis.
RR – recognise/reward the efforts of the idea initiator.
>make sure the improvement sticks.
loading...
Thank you for your comments Ian. Your statement requires a technical response and accordingly we suggest that you contact Plant Biosecurity on 6272 3220 for further information regarding your query
loading...
As an original member of the panel I am curious to know what happened to the IMPORT RISK ANALYSIS – ORNAMENTAL BULBS FROM
THE NETHERLANDS, UNITED KINGDOM, ISRAEL AND
NEW ZEALAND see http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/162081/pbpm2001-17.pdf
It seems to have never been completed!!!!
Also without some background I must reject the statement “An analysis of the data showed that no significant quarantine diseases had been found on the bulbs for more than five years”. An issue at the time of the original evaluation was the lack of active investigation into quarantine breaches. Unless there has been active monitoring of sites then the data is likely to be deficient. No news is not always good news! Especially when dealing with pests that have significant lag time between infestation and detection.
ciao
Ian Atkinson
Mt Barker SA
loading...
Hi Ian.
I tried to post a response a couple of weeks ago but it didn’t seem to work. Apologies for the lateness of reply.
Cheers
Brant
loading...
I know I’m keeping this thread going but it does really interest me.
Emma, I love the fact that we’re already discussing how risk and innovation interrelate. For those my area of interest is risk management i.e. implementing and managing a risk management framework, just about everything we do is tied to “Why are we doing this” and “how can we help/benefit the department”.
But thats not the point of this post! What I’d really like to hear is how Steve and Emma would start the ‘revolution’ (yes this is my word not anyone elses) in other words what surgery is needed, what are the radical changes and in what areas are they needed?
On a basic level how do public servants who don’t have the legitimate delegation (and I’m assuming that means not in the Senior Executive Service (SES)) start to make changes to the culture that then ...
... allows innovation to thrive?
I think its time for me to do some more reading because this post is making me think about a lots of new avenues that I’ve not considered from APS emplyoment structure (why we have it, why is it needed, are there alternatives) through to communicating with the Senior Executive as a non SES/EL public servant and how do I know whats important/needed information at the SES level.. opps another one filtering of messages through the APS as briefs and information go through the approval processes. I know some of the impediments to Innovation are listed in the Report so may start there.
loading...
Hi Elizabeth
Nothing like an intellectual challenge on a Monday. Some time ago the head of U.S. Strategic command made a statement to the effect that the chain of command is not the chain of information. That was in relation to the use of social media.
We can learn a lot from that simple statement. For too long in the APS we have embraced the notion that APS level (chain of command) is the chain of information. Consequently, information and views are distorted, layers of complexity built up and solutions to problems over engineered.
Add to the above the fact that a lot of work may require the involvement of many different areas and I think one gets a feel for why major the problems around innovation, reform and Gov 2.0 are red tape and organisational culture. That is not to say, however, that the problem is as simple as the higher you ...
... go up the food chain the greater the read tape. We all contribute to the problem of red tape and culture.
That being said, from a sociological and organisational perspective the questions become:
What areas have the greatest interest in red tape and the preservation of what is increasingly an arcane view of hierarchy?
Whose careers are bound up with the current state of affairs?
Why do people speak up when contributing to sector wide reports? But obviously find it much harder in their organisation or workplace.
Difficult questions, but overall I think the questions above and the whole situation point us in some directions. In the interests of further discussion I’ll put those directions forward as questions.
1. Why can’t leadership be provided in breaking the nexus between APS level and the chain of information?
2. Given that corporate areas are in effect the ‘keepers of red tape’, why not reform those areas root and branch to shift the culture. In this I would include assurance, risk, human resource and organisational development areas.
4. Why not reduce the layers of management (and approval), to get things done.
5. Why not review the performance of staff according their actual decision capability and then give them an above level delegation so that holes are poked in the existing APS structure.
6. Social media tools are great weapons to review decision making and to come to a balanced view of how we work and the structures we work with. So if there is a radical element to these thoughts it is let staff ‘go for it’.
loading...
I did, of course, mean ‘red tape’ not read tape in the third para of my post. As to let staff ‘go for it’ a few points of clarification. That really means giving them a clear OK to speak up, giving them the means to do so and setting an example. in the Gov 2.0 space the talk is of enhanced democracy. In the workplace this is probably translates as enhanced participation.
Steve
loading...
The I-GEN initiative is the sort of innovation the public service is good at and we should celebrate success in getting these sorts of innovations happening.
That being said these sorts of innovations are incremental. Culturally, the public sector needs to become more open to fundamental change – not for the sake of it but because the circumstances in the ‘the real world’ increasingly require solutions that do not fit the paradigm of incremental change.
So one of the challenges is to build a culture and practice that can go beyond incremental change. The risks are too great not to do this.
But again, and with ghusto, we must learn to celebrate our successes and not sell ourselves short.
Cheers – Steve D
loading...
Couldn’t agree with you more Steve. We emphasise incremental change being crucial to long term, embedded innovation.
Our aim this year is to make sure the system works, iron out any bugs and get people using it. If we can maintain that for 12 months we are doing well.
Longer term we are working on a 2-5 year strategy to then start to make the significant cultural changes to the way the department works. The first paradigm shift was agreeing to do this which was fantastic and a leap of faith from the leaders within DAFF. The next one will be making sure it remains viable and produces ongoing results.
So managing the expectations of our executive and department is very important. The benefits realisation often takes years and whilst quick wins are useful for proving it’s worth, the longer term improvements are the ones with greater impact.
Thanks for ...
... your comments and I would be happy to talk more about this with you if you want.
loading...
With no disrespect to the team at DAFF who came up with this concpet and saw it through to implementation, I would argue that this was not at all an example of innovation. To me, this is an example of continual process improvement in action. And this is good, we need to see much more of this in the public and the private sectors to help lift the nation’s flagging productivity gains. I see innovative ideas as being slightly left-field, with – by definition – a decent amount of risk attached. This process/procedural change would appear to have little risk attached and is not ‘game changing’.
I applaud the Department for putting in place the I-Gen program, but challenge them, and all staff at DAFF to develop and implement some real innovative change.
loading...
Isn’t that one of the problems with understanding innovation?
To some innovation is slightly left of field, but to others the changing of a process by applying new knowledge resulting in a benefit is considered innovation.
How can we develop innovation and innovative thinking if most people have different opinions of what innovation actual is?
For the record I still struggle to define innovation simply to others and am constantly looking for a good short definition.
The ANAO describe innovation as “creation and implementation of new processes, product, services and methods of delivery which result in significatnt improvements in the efficency, effectivness or quality of outcomes.” Case Study above then does fit the purpose of innovation.
I think the I Gen is a great concept, but the risk is that people will become disenchanted if they don’t see evidence of their innovative solutions going ahead. Brant, I’d be ...
... interested in seeing if input falls off over time and how many ideas are actually implemented.
loading...
Hi Elizabeth.
We have a simple definition of innovation. A new way of doing something that improves the way you work. It doesn’t have to be novel – never been done before (however, this is fine too), but it may be an old technique re-applied or a tool someone uses in a different context or in a new way.
This simplifies it down quite a bit. So again it relates to the scale of innovation as mentioned in my other blog.
And yes we are stepping into continual improvement and R and D space so there is overlap however one of the most important things that we want people to do is to connect more with other areas of the department. Because everyone can see the projects in progress and having been completed, then we can use our resources more effectively. Often different teams are working on the ...
... same or similar thing. Once they find out that there are others working in this same space, they can contribute or work with that team to get a better result. Duplication is quite high especially because we have regions and central office and naturally there can be a disconnect sometimes. Also, the regional staff have very similar functions but are just geographically separated so they find this system very useful.
I will be writing posts as we go along the journey and hopefully we can all learn from each other in the process.
loading...
Elizabeth,
We, and many others, can argue definitions ad infinitum – and it would probably get us nowhere. I guess when I look at the ANAO definition you quote, the word ‘significant’ leaps out at me. If the outcomes of this improved process at DAFF are significant, then I guess it can be called innovative. It is indeed all relative.
One of my concerns lies with the overuse of the word innovation and the lessening of its meaning and impact. Whatever happened to staff trying to work on improvements as part of their daily job? If we start calling small incremental changes and process improvements – or taking small steps, as seems to be the common rationale in the public sector – ‘innovation’, what then do we call the big, game changing ideas and concepts that are developed into practice that make the workplace, governments, society, the world a better place?
I am ...
... pleased my earlier comments have stimulated some discussion on an otherwise fairly benign discussion forum!
PS – Brant, I fully get where you are coming from and the rational approach you have taken. I look forward to seeing resaults in five years time – perhaps by that time you will be a member of a less risk-averse ‘executive’ team and will give permission for officers below you to take risks from time to time!
loading...
Good comments Robert.
I understand what you are saying but the way we sell it is that there is a scale of innovation, from small incremental changes right through to NASA or Google type projects. We encourage the lower end of the scale because that gets people into the space. Many people say that they are not a genius or don’t have those left-field ideas so they don’t get involved. However, after you talk to them they have some really fantastic, simple ideas which have a big impact.
The conference we went to in Spain called the Dynamics of Innovation by ISPIM (international society of professional innovation management) confirmed this and said that those smaller incremental changes are really important (a blog on this will occur shortly).
It also depends on the appetite of the department to make those left-field changes. I think that they will come in time ...
... but people have to be comfortable using the tools and approaches to developing ideas first.
Of course you will have that top 5% who love the innovation space and come up with genuinely innovative approaches. However, public sector constraints are difficult as is intense public scrutiny.
When we started this we went to that left-field end of the spectrum and it didn’t wash as it was too “risky” (which new things inherently are!), so we had to scale it back to get the buy in from our executive. Over time we can ramp it up and get more progressive thinking and bigger changes that will make a big difference.
So I agree with what you are saying but I think we have the balance right at the moment but time will tell as to whether it is successful.
Happy to discuss further with you if you are keen Robert
Cheers
Brant
loading...
Hi Robert, Elizabeth and Brant,
Thank you for your interesting conversation. I just have one small thing to add.
Maybe what one defines as innovation is dependent on the context. My experience is that what might not be considered innovation in some environments would indeed be considered innovative (a significant improvement) in an environment which is highly conservative and risk averse. And what might appear to be small changes to those outside are actually the seeds of major cultural ‘revolution’!
Remember the Tipping Point? From little things, big things grow …
Cheers, Emma
loading...
Hi Emma
A very true observation. What I would like to add however, is the question of at what point do risk averse and controlling practices and processes become dysfunctional. And following on from that, if they are dysfunctional then isn’t it time to radically change organisational culture.
My personal professional view is that we should not indulge those cultural elements that no longer serve us, or the public well.
Surgical removal might sound a bit harsh, but I suspect that is what is needed to liberate the innovative capabilities of our people.
Hmmm. . . Public servants of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but red tape.
Steve Davies
loading...
Hi Steve,
I agree completely. I have experience of one such environment in the public service and you are right, radical cultural change is necessary in this case. The problem is that there is often a reason that these environments are created – in this case, huge public scrutiny of the work we were doing. This was reinforced by the style of management employed – extreme, debilitating risk aversion.
Eventually the environment changed and the style of leadership/management became no longer appropriate but the culture was aleady so entrenched that it became difficult to change. In addition, like attracts like and people who preferred the culture stayed and those who didn’t (including me) left. I didn’t have the legitimate delegation to implement a ‘surgical excision’ unfortunately!
The I-Gen program in theory should liberate people to attempt a ‘bottom up’ cultural change and although the changes will be small ...
... and incremental they could eventually lead to high level support. For example, I wonder how long DAFF has had an Innovation Manager?! Maybe Brant could fill us in on some history … And of course a bottom up approach requires hard work and a champion. I wish you all the best of luck with your program Brant!
Cheers, Emma
loading...
There’s the risk of applying too much focus on defining innovation, with that focus permeating, then hindering, the decision making process. Makes it hard getting even the most basic stuff across the line when you constantly have to describe the scope of something that needs to be as broad as a person’s ability to think.
One of the unique aspects of the APS is the number of long-termers. Commercial environment decision-makers are being refreshed at a much higher rate than in Government, so the likelyhood of seeking endorsement from a person or team that posseses sufficient savvy to understand the benefits of building a vibrant, engaged innovative community, is higher.
In government, our aspirations can be limited by the simple fact that a key decision maker/s, can’t visualise the potential of an online community, particularly when the vehicle to engage that community might be based on social software that their kids ...
... interact with.
One thing that everyone agrees on though, whatever it’s packaged as, is that ‘we need new ideas to keep improving.’ Call it innovation, call it creativity, call it whatever you need to, to obtain the approval to start building a community, then as Brant says, ramp it up and nurture it to help it evolve.
loading...
Hi Eric
A great post. The only thing I’d add is that the number of ‘long termers’ can also be a major drawback where they are not savvy.
That may very well be a lot of them as, like you have intimated, they don’t see the potential (isn’t it a reality on the wider world?).
That being said, there is a case for people to assume some personal responibility and ‘Just get on with it’. I say that on the basis it is unfair to put so much of the onus on decision makers. Eveyone pitching in and helping is a better model.
loading...
Thank for sharing your innovation experience.
loading...