This is an issue that Professor Daniel Sarewitz spoke about at a recent presentation at the Australian National University titled ‘Can humanity manage the consequences of its ingenuity? Technological complexity and the limits of understanding’.

Professor Sarewitz’s talk covered:

• That humans are inherently technological and innovative beings. Our technology can create as well as solve problems which means we can simultaneously be very good at solving certain types of problems and yet have difficulty with others
• There are different types of problems/conditions
1. Level 1 – problems or situations where we can reduce the uncertainty around what the problem is and which are amenable to a technological fix
2. Level 2 – situations where we can manage the uncertainty but not remove it
3. Level 3 – conditions that create uncertainty
• Level 1 problems (such as measles or smallpox) are suited to being addressed by solutions that meet three rules
• there is clear cause and effect and so the solution can be embodied in technology (e.g. vaccination). The problem can be controlled
• the effects of the technology/solution can be seen over a short period of time which builds agreement around the solution
• you can demonstrate incremental improvement over time. There is evident progress
• Level 2 problems are complex systems that focus on error correction and learning over time. Professor Sarewitz gave the example of a complex system like an aircraft carrier – you cannot ensure everything will work all the time, but you can work towards it
• Level 3 problems involve irreducible uncertainty. You may not be able to ‘solve’ the issue, rather it may be a condition that has to be managed and where you focus on ‘solutions’ that people can live with. The Professor gave the example of toxic chemicals, where the ‘solution’ may be to develop less toxic alternatives rather than removing the use of chemicals altogether
• The approach to addressing level 3 conditions involves options that are:
• Politically attractive – focus first on a few small steps that make sense for multiple reasons and offer rapid and demonstrable pay back
• Politically inclusive – focus on pluralistic processes
• Relentlessly pragmatic – focus on actions whose effects can be measured in the short as well as long terms

How does this relate to public sector innovation?

I like the framework in that it reinforces that there are different types of problems that require different types of solutions, some of which will need to be innovative. It highlights that the ‘solution’ itself can generate unexpected changes and issues that in turn require further work/solutions. And it shows that not every problem can be solved, sometimes it’s a matter of identifying the best ways to manage the condition and focus on finding ways to live with the uncertainty rather than being able to remove it.

I think the advice for tackling level 3 conditions is also very relevant to the implementation of innovations in the public sector. The clearer the benefits can be, the quicker the benefits can be realised, the more that people can be engaged in the process, and the easier it is to tell that the innovation is working in the short term as well as the long term, then the more likely that the innovation will be successful.

I have attempted to faithfully represent the presentation by Daniel however any errors/misrepresentations should be considered my own.

I was preoccupied with this question when I recently attended the Strategic Innovation and Local Government National Roundtable organised by the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government and the ANZSOG Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra.

The purpose of the Roundtable was to provide insights and recommendations for growing a culture of innovation within the Australian Local Government sector. The day began with some interesting discussion about the factors requiring innovation in local government, the practice of innovation from the perspective of Adelaide’s Lord Mayor, Stephen Yarwood, and what can be learnt from the private sector about the practice of innovation.

Part of the discussion was around the issue of what language should be used when talking about ‘innovation’ and the prospect that innovation has become a negative word in local government and thus should be avoided. There was the suggestion that it would be better to focus on the language of ‘problem solving’ and ‘ingenuity’ which are better understood and less contentious.

This is a perspective with which I have some sympathy  – after a while as a practitioner the word ‘innovation’ can seem like it is used too often, for too many things and is seen as too vague and nebulous a term.

But personally I agree with Christian Bason (MindLab’s Innovation Director) when he said that “if ‘innovation’ wasn’t part of our vocabulary, we’d have to invent it. Innovation is the only term we have that captures the notion of creating something new that works.”¹. It may not be the best word, but I don’t think we should step back from it, and I worry that if other language is adopted, the same issues will be faced over time with any ‘new’ words.

The Roundtable’s afternoon discussion covered many issues that are familiar to us working on innovation in the Australian Government – the need to establish a strategic vision, using communities of practice, the importance of experimentation and of leadership, and the need to resource problem solving.

It also covered a number of challenges that are just as familiar – how to foster team collaboration in problem-solving, how to build and develop institutional knowledge, and the question of how you maintain a culture of problem-solving or innovation over time.

At the end of the day did I have an answer to my question about how innovation differs between the federal and local tiers of government? To be honest, I’m still not sure. I think there are differences but I am not sure whether those differences matter as much as the similarities. I suspect this will be something we better understand over time, in part through the work of the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government.

For those employed in local government and interested in innovation, I highly recommend investigating their IKEN (Innovation and Knowledge Exchange Network) resource (as well as our own Toolkit, of course!).

• How do you organise for successful disruptive innovations? Chris Trimble advises that you cannot do it the way you do everything else. ”Here’s an uncomfortable truth about innovation: No matter how great your idea, you can’t deliver breakthrough innovation without breakthrough organizational design…. Breakthrough innovation is not just about ideas. It’s about getting unfamiliar work done, and unfamiliar work requires unfamiliar teams.”¹
• John Hagel III and John Seely Brown outline the steps for turning a big idea into reality – create a compelling shaping view, make the benefit mutual, demonstrate your commitment, create a platform, and gain critical mass.
• Different types of problems require different types of solutions. Tim Kastelle looks at one characterisation of different categories of problems – puzzles and mysteries. “The problems that lead to disruptive innovations are often mysteries. This means that we need a different toolkit to solve these problems than we use when we solve puzzles. Experimentation and design thinking are two excellent approaches to use when facing a mystery.”²
• Is the biggest barrier to innovation you? The authors of this piece argue that too many people are reliant on prediction reasoning alone, which is unsuited for the dealing with the uncertainties of innovation.
• Alex Goldmark writes about plans by Code For America to help small businesses with big ideas get into public service. “The lucky civic-minded geeks chosen will receive $25,000 to grow their business, along with the training and entree to Uncle Sam’s IT procurement experts. The hope is to build an enlarged ecosystem of smaller, more nimble startups to keep entrenched IT contractors on their toes, taxpayer money better spent, and democracy better served.” ³

As always, please feel free to identify any other recent developments or articles of interest in the comments below.

Recently David Albury, from The Innovation Unit in the UK, presented to the Executive Level Leadership Network on the issue of ‘innovation in times of constraint’. I was able to attend, and hear some thoughts on public sector innovation from one of the leading thinkers in the field.

Some of the key points raised by David were:

• The ‘ICE’ balance for public sector organisations - balancing innovation and efficiency over cuts. Cuts can include decommissioning and disinvestment, eliminating non-core activities or activities that are better done by another organisation. Efficiency can get you more or the same results for less, but it does not alter the nature of the inputs or outputs and does not position the agency to be any better at meeting future challenges. Innovation, particularly radical innovation, is about getting significantly better outcomes for significantly less. Agencies need to consider how these are balanced in achieving their aims.
• The drivers for innovation include:
1. Long-term challenges which are becoming more pressing – such as the ageing population, or climate change
2. Persistent issues with no known pathway to solution – issues where there has been a plateau in performance such as management of drug and alcohol problems
3. Increasing pressures and demands on public services – that we as citizens have changed expectations about what government can deliver and are no longer content to be passive consumers of services
4. The Global Financial Crisis has led to a massive tightening of public finances
• We now know much more about how to achieve radical innovation than we have previously, and that the focus needs to be not just on creativity and imagination, but on providing a disciplined innovation model/process.
• A key part of stimulating innovation is to understand the demand for innovation. For innovation you need clarity about the goal – a common problem is a failure in understanding the real underlying problem or cause. Using ethnography and other such approaches can be key to getting this right.
• Public sector agencies tend to be very bad at looking outside of themselves. High performing innovative organisations are constantly engaging in horizon scanning and looking outwards, looking to other organisations, countries or sectors for how they have solved the problem or a similar one. There’s also a lot to be learnt from looking at the most extreme circumstances or examples.
• To generate new insights and ideas we need to use divergent and convergent styles of thinking. We need to engage provocateurs, users and people who are new entrants to the relevant services. To produce genuinely innovative solutions you require new perspectives. Traditionally the public sector has been poor at engaging users in the process but we are getting better. We are also getting a better understanding of the tools and processes that can be successfully used – e.g. the six thinking hats developed by Edward de Bono.
• In incubating solutions we need to make more use of design and modelling, or prototyping and simulations. The techniques of service design, which are very well-known in the private sector and parts of the third/not-for-profit sector, have been little used in the public sector (though this is changing).
• We should avoid using the language of pilots. Pilots are based on the assumption that you have got something right, but that you just need to refine it before rolling it out further. Instead we should use prototyping. Prototyping suggests that we sort of know where we want to get to but that we also know that we will get it wrong and make mistakes along the way. We need to get there by stages of controlled experiments involving large groups of stakeholders and users.
• If agencies want to innovate they need to focus on a small, key number of priorities and put resources around the innovation process for them.
• The best innovations happen when there are connections through the organisation, and with users and stakeholders – when there is a sense of community.
• We should avoid trying to measure innovation (or the outputs) and focus on measuring the potential or capability for innovation.
• Times of constraint can be very productive for innovation. The impetus of constraint can provide the necessary push for innovation – but it needs to be combined with passion and honesty. Linking users with services can unleash real change that can save significant amounts of money. The challenge needs to be framed as an opportunity for achieving significant improvements to services and outcomes that will also save money. If it is presented merely as a matter of fiscal constraint, the innovation challenge will be deeply uninteresting to the professionals within the system (and presumably the users).

It was a very interesting discussion and there was evident interest by the audience in this important topic.

David was in Australia with the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). I have tried for a faithful representation of David’s presentation - any errors/misrepresentations should be considered my own.

• In the team here we are often asked about definitions of innovation and what it really means. Professor Philip Auerswald provides a frank answer.
• Nesta, the UK’s innovation foundation has officially launched the ‘Centre for Challenge Prizes’ which will bring together expertise and interest in challenge prizes and help build understanding of the role of challenge prizes in stimulating innovation.
• The 2012 Australian Government ICT Awards finalists have been announced, including Excellence in eGovernment and the Government 2.0 Innovator Award.
• Courtney Martin looks at the potential of using the ingenuity of Silicon Valley for public sector innovation.
• Saul Kaplan suggests that there should not be any debate about the value of design thinking, rather it needs to be put to work. “No more books are needed to convince us that design thinking and process are a priority. They are important tools. If you want to convince us, stop talking about design thinking, and start putting it to work to mobilize new business models, transform customer experiences and enable real systems change.”¹

As always, please feel free to identify any other recent developments or articles of interest in the comments below.

In January, I updated you about the Secretaries Board commitment to establish the Centre for Excellence in Public Sector Design. Since then we have been busy with the various processes and procedural matters to get the Centre underway.

I can now provide advice about what has been happening in the establishment phase. At the May Secretaries Board meeting, our Secretary Dr Don Russell gained endorsement from his colleagues for the membership of the Board that will oversee the pilot Centre.

The members of the Board for the Centre are:

• Chair - Greg Smith, Adjunct Professor, Economic and Social Policy, Australian Catholic University (Canberra), Director for the Centre for Policy Development and member of the Commonwealth Grants Commission
• Michael D’Ascenzo AO, Commissioner of Taxation, Australian Taxation Office
• Jane Halton PSM, Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing
• Lisa Paul AO PSM, Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
• Dr Don Russell, Secretary, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
• Chris Lonchampt, private sector design and innovation thinker
• The CEO of the Centre

At its meeting, the Secretaries Board endorsed the Charter for the Centre [Word 83KB][PDF 40KB] which sets out the purpose and objectives of the Centre that will guide its operations.

The Charter has been developed based on numerous consultations and discussions and builds on the extensive preparatory work that has been done by my staff. Given the pilot nature of the Centre, we see the Charter as a suitable framework for the work of the Centre.

I know that many of you are also interested to know the outcome of the process for engaging a CEO for the Centre. I am not in a position to announce the result of the selection process as yet.  However, we do expect to announce the CEO shortly and expect the Centre will commence operations in June.

Apart from the formal line-up of events that you can find on our site, we encourage you and your agency to participate by holding your own events. These may not be headline events; they could also be smaller activities that you do at the team level.

We’ve put together some suggestions on some possible events or activities that you might want to consider doing in your work area.

• TED lunches – if you’ve got a communal area you can watch TED talks from, why not choose some with a relevant innovation bent and gather some colleagues together to watch and discuss over lunch?
• ‘Black swan’ challenge – innovation is often driven by strategic challenges, but are you sure you know what they are? Ask staff members to put forward potential ‘black swans’ – possible events or developments that:
• would have a big impact on the operations or context of your agency,
• are not considered or captured in your agency’s existing planning processes or scenarios, and
• after the event, the agency will be seen to have been in a position to do something about beforehand.
• Innovation trivia – hold a trivia quiz with innovation-themed questions relevant to your workplace
• Seminar/presentation – invite external stakeholders or partners to talk about something new that they are doing well that might have lessons for your agency
• Challenge-based collaboration – identify some challenges in your work area that require an innovative solution and collaborate on possible solutions. Depending on the problem you might want to involve other areas, other agencies, or partner organisations
• Workshops/how-to events – invite someone from outside the agency to come and talk about an aspect of the innovation process, or provide insight on how to get a particular novel idea introduced into your workplace
• Walk and talk/open air innovation – why not shake up one of your usual meetings and do something different? Or take a walk around an iconic location in your area and talk about innovation?
• If you can’t attend the GovJam, you can always participate via streaming or watching online (details will be provided closer to the date).

Of course this is an area where you are really only limited by your imagination. There are many other possible events or activities – please put your ideas in the comments below!

• Tim Kastelle writes about organisations that have a high level of innovation competence but low innovation commitment - or unicorns as he labels them. “Doing both incremental and more radical innovation at the same time takes conscious effort, because it’s really hard to do. You don’t automatically have an innovation portfolio. And it’s hard to practice multiple types of innovation without making an effort…. That’s why Unicorns are mythical – they don’t exist.” ¹
• Does conflict or cooperation best aid or hinder innovation? Andrew O’Connell considers the question and concludes “Maybe the way to look at it is that conflict is the irritant that gives rise to the need for innovation, but cooperation — or, for some people, solitude — is the best route to dealing with the irritant.”²
• The need for the public sector to innovate is often driven by innovations in the rest of society. Is that rate of innovation accelerating or stalling? The science fiction author Neal Stephenson makes the case that the information abundance provided by the Internet is actually inhibiting innovation. On the other hand Carole Cadwalladr writes about the work of Singularity University and its view of an oncoming wave of innovation. Justin Fox provides an assessment of the views of the two schools of thought. “There are intriguing signs that we might be approaching the point where digital innovation takes a big leap into the physical world: 3D printers are breaking into the mainstream, tech billionaires are backing an asteroid mining venture, and lots of people keep saying that biotechnology is the next great frontier. Then again, the 3D stuff is still mostly prototypes and novelties, and asteroid mining and the biotech revolution haven’t actually happened yet. Even beyond the technological challenges, there are lots of other obstacles to change.”³
• Jane Dudman covers some of the highlights of the recent Open Government Partnership conference held in Brazil and notes some of the challenges of  openness. “There have been plenty of awkward questions even for countries considered to be at the forefront of moves toward more open government. UK Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude declared that data is now the raw material of the 21st century and that governments are at a pivotal moment in becoming more transparent about their policies: directly after a report from the National Audit Office concluded there was not enough evidence that the transparency agenda is meeting its objectives for greater accountability, supporting service improvement and stimulating economic growth.”⁴
• Craig Thomler writes about the launch of Patient Opinion, an online rating service for medical services, in Australia. “Patient Opinion makes patient views and experiences visible in a central and public way, allowing health providers with the ability to access and review – even respond – to comments. The site also provides a level of governance and safety through monitoring stories and comments to ensure they are not defamatory.”⁵

As always, please feel free to identify any other recent developments or articles of interest in the comments below.

• Nesta, the UK’s innovation foundation, has released “The Art of Exit: In search of creative decommissioning“. “In the context of significant and sustained reductions in public spending, changing public expectations and rising demand, those who design and deliver public services have to contend with a very different set of circumstances in which to innovate. They will also need to become more adept at creative decommissioning – taking resources out of less effective approaches in order to reinvest elsewhere.”¹
• Previously we linked to a report from Deloitte on disruptive innovation in the public sector. Deloitte Insights have since also produced two interesting vodcasts on what disruptive innovation is and lessons about disruptive innovation.
• Craig Thomler provides some guidance on how to convince risk-averse management to say yes to social media initiatives.
• Tim Kastelle identifies some lessons from the innovation competition that Netflix ran from 2006 to 2009. “You always need to be aware of what’s going on around you. This has an enormous impact on what kind of ideas you should be testing out. If the environment is changing rapidly, then making yourself more efficient is risky – it’s quite possible that you’re perfecting a process that could be obsolete in a couple of years.”²
• Ben Hecht writes about the links between social and public sector innovation and makes some interesting observations. “The more I thought about it, the more I realized that public sector-led social innovation (“public sector innovation”) differs from social sector innovation in one absolutely fundamental way: it actually has a much better chance of having permanent, lasting impact from the outset.”³

As always, please feel free to identify any other recent developments or articles of interest in the comments below.

Recently I was a participant in a multiple hour meeting that had several interstate attendees, representing agencies from other jurisdictions or from outside of government. Discussion turned to how we might include others who wanted to participate, but would be unable to travel to the next scheduled meeting because of budget constraints.

As many public servants will know, the budget for official travel is constantly being reviewed and often reduced for a number of reasons including fiscal constraint.

For shorter meetings teleconferencing can be a great option. For longer meetings, with several members also participating by phone, I have always found that the meeting tends to suffer and it’s difficult for those participating remotely to fully engage. This is particularly the case for meetings that are less structured or where the discussion needs to be more free-flowing.

So naturally the conversation turned to how we might do video conferencing or some form of virtual meeting. Now some of the individual agencies have developed solutions, particularly for those agencies with multiple offices across the country. Unfortunately, it does get a little trickier when we look across multiple agencies in differing jurisdictions.

As many of you would again be aware, often public sector agencies have restrictions around various technology platforms, including many video conferencing solutions – this may be for good security, cost, performance or reliability reasons.

But these limitations may be just the thing to encourage us to look to other, more innovative solutions – to give us the means and reason to break from our traditional meeting habits and get us to use newer, better (and lower cost) solutions.

In that vein, we would like to hear from others in the public sector who have run successful multi-party video conferencing/virtual meetings. What has worked for you? (Bonus points if the solution was easy, cheap and could work across multiple ICT environments in different agencies.)