Measuring and reporting part 2

Return to Part 1 of this section of the Toolkit

How do we report on public sector innovation?

The above sections discuss why the measurement of public sector innovation is important in the current policy climate, how this may be done, and some of the difficulties associated with such measurement.  This section outlines how public sector innovation can be reported, once the data have been gathered and results analysed.

Reasons for Reporting

Reasons for reporting findings on public sector innovation are varied and may include (but are not limited) to the following:

  1. Public accountability and performance reporting: these may be legislative or policy-based requirements; it can cover activities ranging from performance reporting in organisational documents (such as annual reports and strategic plans) to regular reports by central agencies (such as the SoS Report by the APSC)

  2. Benchmarking: this may occur across a number of levels, including comparison of performance within an organisation, comparisons across organisations, and input to the setting of international standards to allow international comparison

  3. Assessment and review: this may respond to a range of legislative and policy requirements and it relates to performance review of an organisation; assessment and review activities include parliamentary inquiries, productivity reviews and audits

  4. Monitoring: this enables the assessment of change over time (especially with respect to innovation capacity/capability, activity and output/outcome) and assists with (i), (ii) and (iii)

  5. Documentation: recording of public sector innovation may be informational and serve to document best practice and lessons learnt (e.g. case studies); documentation can underpin policy making and resource allocation; documentation is fundamental to any public reporting; it can be used to reach a common understanding, improve implementation and raise awareness.

However, it is proposed that ultimately public sector innovation reporting should identify how innovation has impacted on organisational outputs and outcomes. This will assist policy makers to make decisions and inform individual agencies on their performance with a view to improvement.

Selecting Performance Indicators for Reporting

When selecting public sector innovation indicators for reporting purposes, it is appropriate to select indicators that are relevant and fit for purpose, and it is suggested that they have the following characteristics:

  1. Measurable: produce statistically significant results which can be replicated in future surveys and are less sensitive to the assumptions of the statistical analysis not being met

  2. Informative: provide useful information on innovation performance and outcomes

  3. Educational: assist to improve innovation performance and capacity building

  4. Cost‑effective: present value for money when comparing the costs of data collection versus the insight gained

  5. Engaging: be simple and easily understandable, with self‑evident benefits

  6. Forward‑looking: provide information on the limitations to and capacity for innovation that affect performance and which indicate what action is required in the future

  7. Conducive to benchmarking: enable useful comparisons and facilitate cross‑organisational comparisons and dialogue.

Reporting Framework

Public sector innovation can be analysed from multiple perspectives.  Given the range of interests in all aspects of the innovation process, it is not surprising that findings can be presented in several ways and that this is influenced by the conceptual framework through which innovation is viewed.

Wide-scale, systematic reporting of public sector innovation is still developing with only a few countries attempting to do so. Public sector innovation surveys were trialled by the Nordic countries, European Commission and United Kingdom in 2009 and 2010. The findings of these studies are provided in the MEPIN Report (February 2010), the 9th Innobarometer Report (October 2010) and the NESTA Index Report (March 2011) respectively. Public sector innovation and its measurement is currently being progressed by the OECD through its NESTI Taskforce.

The APSII Team closely examined these reports and adopted a slightly modified approach for the APSII Project. Specifically, it is proposed to report on Australian public sector innovation in three broad areas and to examine a further eight analytical indicators within these areas (as outlined below).

Broad Area of ReportingSpecific Areas of Reporting
Innovation Performance

  • Innovation activities

  • Innovation impacts

Innovation Capability

  • Staff innovation potential

  • Innovation management practices

  • Innovation culture and leadership

  • Agency innovation strategy

Framework Conditions

  • Innovation drivers

  • Innovation barriers

This approach is largely consistent with the conceptual framework adopted in the Ernst and Young Report (October 2009) prepared for NESTA. However, it also draws on elements of the DAMVAD approach.

Types of Presentations

As discussed under measuring public sector innovation, innovation data from surveys and other sources can be both qualitative and quantitative.  The following is an outline of some graphs commonly used in the presentation of innovation data.

  • Spider charts: Otherwise also known as radar charts, star charts or (cob) web charts. Such representations are useful for demonstrating the relative strength and weaknesses of an organisation’s innovation performance. For example, using the eight analytical indicators identified, one could chart an organisation’s overall rating for each. Actual scores (made up of either single or composite values) are needed to chart such a graph.
    To illustrate the point, the following hypothetical example shows an organisation that demonstrates a high level of innovation activity, strong innovation drivers and high staff potential. However, the overall level of innovation impact is low. This may, for example, be due to innovation barriers, poor management practices and a poor innovation culture and leadership, which do not match the organisation’s potential.

Please Note: “Lack of barriers” is an inverse indicator compared to the other indicators.

  • Pie charts: Such representations are useful for demonstrating the relative proportion of responses received on a given topic. They provide a broad overview on how members of an organisation view certain aspects of innovation and the comparative strength of these views.
    The following hypothetical example shows how the employees rated barriers to innovation within their workplace. Out of a sample of 200 people, interviewees were asked to tick each of the boxes representing barriers to innovation within their work place. The graph shows that budgetary constraints, risk aversion by management and a lack of ideas being accepted by management were viewed as the predominant inhibitors of innovation (accounting for 59% of all barriers listed). Change resistance also rated highly at 13%.

  • Bar Graphs:  Bar graphs can be used in a variety of ways to demonstrate innovation performance. They can demonstrate the distribution range of innovation performance across a sample and individual ranking within the sample.
    The following hypothetical example shows the value of a composite innovation indicator (e.g. innovation capacity). This indicator was charted (on a scale from 0 to 10) for all 20 agencies sampled (Agency A to Agency T). Of particular interest is Agency K. The graph shows that only 25% of all agencies sampled reached a score of ≥ 5.0 and that Agency K was mid-ranked (with a median score of 2.8).

A further use of bar graphs is to chart interviewee’s perception on issues when asked to indicate the relative importance of aspects of innovation. Values can be expressed as actual numbers (i.e. number of responses received) or percentages (i.e. out of the overall group sampled).The following hypothetical example shows how the interviewees rated the importance of various sources of ideas.  The first graph depicts the answers as a percentage of responses in any one category and the second graph depicts the actual values. Both graphs show that the government, other agencies and the organisation’s leadership were seen as the least important sources for innovative ideas. In contrast, clients, researchers, contractors and the public were seen as the major source for inspiration and accounted for more than 50% of the ideas generated.

General versus agency-specific reports

Once innovation information is analysed and presented in an easily understandable manner, it can become a powerful instrument to assist government, policy makers, agencies and stakeholder groups to understand innovation performance across the public service.

  • General Reports: Such reports present trends within the wider public service and show areas of relative strength and weakness. They can show the current norm (as represented by mean or median values) and the maximum and minimum distribution around such averages. By indicating how successful agencies deal with specific issues, general reports can be a source of inspiration for improvement to innovation performance.

  • Agency-specific Reports: Such reports indicate how an individual agency is performing relative to the wider norm. They are particularly beneficial in analysing the specific strengths and weaknesses of an organisation with a view to improving innovation performance. Such reports should be treated as confidential to the agency.

Example of UK Scoreboard

The following example of the “UK Scoreboard” outlines how an agency-specific report can provide guidance on public sector innovation performance. NESTA commissioned six pilot projects to
develop a new Innovation Index for UK innovation.  One of these projects, a study by Ernst & Young, examined public sector innovation and developed an approach for performance reporting, which became the basis of the NESTA model.

The UK Scoreboard was primarily aimed at senior policy makers and those responsible for the delivery of public service. However, it also proved useful for senior management to communicate to
middle management and front-line staff the importance of innovation.

The approach used in this project was a combination of a balanced scorecard and traffic light reporting. It provided a strategic summary of the performance of public sector delivery organisations, but most importantly, excluded policy focussed organisations. The assessment framework contained four parts:

  1. Innovation Impact: The scorecard gave an assessment of the innovation impact on an organisation’s current performance. It included improvements in outcomes, output KPIs, service evaluation and efficiency.  It provided a commentary on its findings and the traffic light report summarised these impacts in terms of significant (green), limited (yellow) or nil (red).

  2. Innovation Activities: The scorecard gave an analysis of innovation activities most likely to impact on organisational performance in the short to medium term. It looked at idea generation, selection and development, implementation and diffusion and reported how these activities rated compared to top-line performance. The traffic light report summarised if these activities had a significant (green), limited (yellow) or nil (red) impact.

  3. Innovation Capability: The scorecard gave an analysis of the organisation’s innovation capability, looking at key factors underpinning innovation activity and performance in the medium to longer term. The analysis examined leadership culture, management of innovation and enablers of innovation. The traffic light report summarised these capabilities as clearly helping innovation
    (green), potentially being significant (yellow) or being of little/no use (red).

  4. System Levers for Innovation: The scorecard gave an analysis of how an organisation’s system helped it to innovate. These levers can help or hinder innovation and it included factors
    outside the organisation’s immediate control (such as policy levers).  The analysis examined incentives, leadership and culture, autonomy and enablers. The traffic light report summarised these system levers as helping innovation (green), having no effect (yellow) or as inhibiting innovation (red).

Benefits of being innovative

There are obvious benefits associated with agencies having a developed system of innovation in place.  These benefits include (but are not limited to):

  • Productivity and efficiency gains for the agency

  • Favourable audit reports and productivity reviews

  • Public recognition as a leader of innovation

  • Innovation show casing

  • Magnet for high calibre employees

An example of how an innovative Federal Government in the USA can influence desirability as a place of employment is shown in a snapshot article on the 'US
partnership approach to public sector innovation' (August 2011).

About the APSII Project

The Australian Public Sector Innovation Indicators (APSII) Project arose as an initiative from the APS 200 Public Sector Innovation Project (August 2010 to April 2011). It is part of the APS Innovation Action Plan (released in June 2011) and its governance arrangements are as follows:

Please Note:  The APSII Project only reported to the Public Sector Innovation Project, a sub-committee of the APS200, between 2010 and mid-2011. With the cessation of the sub-committee in April 2011, the APSII Project reports directly to the APS Secretaries Board.

The project’s specific objectives are to provide:

  1. data and metrics on the innovation performance and capacities of agencies in order to assist the management of innovation in the Australian Public Service

  2. internationally comparable data and metrics that allows benchmarking of the Australian public sector against overseas counterparts.

The APSII Project thus seeks to develop a common understanding of what public sector innovation is and a standard approach to its measurement. This will allow organisations to benchmark their performance against individual peers and the wider APS. In particular, it will assist agencies to identify their strengths and weaknesses with respect to their innovation capacity and performance and thereby assist in improving public sector innovation performance. In the longer term, and following the collection of sufficient innovation metrics, this will also allow Australia to compare itself internationally.

The project is being conducted in three stages:

  • Stage 1: The conceptualisation and development of the measurement framework and stakeholder consultation over its utility within the APS by the end of 2011. Substantial research on international approaches to measuring public sector innovation underpins this work. The utilisation and analysis of the APSC SoS survey data is integral in identifying further data needs
    on public sector innovation

  • Stage 2: The gathering of innovation data through a pilot survey and other appropriate sources and finalisation of the measurement framework. By the end of 2012 the APSII Project
    aims to have conducted a pilot APS innovation survey, delivered a measurement framework paper for public sector innovation in Australia, produced a pilot report on the state of innovation in the APS, and prepared pilot analytical reports on innovation for individual agencies

  • Stage 3: The possible extension of the measurement framework to the wider public service at the State/Territory and Local Government levels. This stage is subject to the outcome of the previous stages and is unlikely to commence before the end of 2012.

To assist with the project, two reference groups have been established:

  • the Technical Reference Group (TRG), which is made up of technical experts on information surveys and data analysis from the DIISRTE, APSC, ABS and Australian Innovation Research Centre (AIRC)

  • the Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG), which is made up of representatives from each of 20 portfolio departments in the APS.

An APSII Consultation Paper “Measuring Innovation in the Australian Public Sector” was developed in June 2011, which sets out the aims of the project and proposed process. It invited specific
input and comment. The SRG met in June 2011 to consider the paper and provided broad stakeholder feedback on the status of innovation in the APS and requirements of an innovation survey. The TRG, which guides all technical stages of the project, met on three occasions in 2011 (March, June and December). A technical workshop was also held in October 2011. The APSII Project also closely collaborates with the APSC on the SoS Report and has contributed to the development of the innovations in 2011 agency and employee surveys.

The following schema summarises the first two stages of the APSII Project in terms of its timeframe, milestone deliveries and consultation processes.

For regular updates on the status of the APSII Project refer to the Blog on the Public Sector Innovation Toolkit.

Case studies on public sector innovation (measurement)

EU Innobarometer

In 2010, the 9th Innobarometer Survey of “Innovation in Public Administration” was conducted across 27 countries of the EU along with Norway and Switzerland.

It was the ninth survey conducted with the objective of this survey being on “the innovation strategies of the European public administration sector in response to changing constraints and opportunities.” The focus of previous surveys includes strategic innovation, innovation transfer and the role of clusters in facilitating innovation, to name a few.

The 2010 survey was conducted by Gallup who interviewed 4,063 senior managers within public administration organisations using a fixed telephone methodology.

The main findings of the survey include:

  • One of the most important drivers of innovation in the public sector was the introduction of new laws and regulations. With 48% of respondents within the EU
    indicating that this was a very important factor. 39% of innovators said new policy priorities were very important. 40% of respondents said E-government
    initiatives they had to implement new solutions related to a mandated implementation of an online service provision

  • Within the EU, two-thirds of public administration organisations introduced a new or significantly improved service in the last 3 years

  • When asked what would improve their organisation’s ability to innovate, 79% mentioned new technologies, 67% mentioned increased demands from citizens, 44% new policy priorities and 39% new regulations

The MEPIN Project

The Measuring Public Innovation in the Nordic Countries or the MEPIN Project was conducted over two years and was completed in February 2011. The project developed a preliminary measurement framework and a pilot study was undertaken in five Nordic countries[1. Participating countries included Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden and the project had multi-institutional

The aim of the project was to develop and implement a pilot survey of innovation among public sector organisations in the Nordic countries. The project was initiated by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation which has also developed an initial measurement framework for conducting public sector innovation surveys. The MEPIN survey was conducted by web-based or postal forms and drew on definitions from the Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat, 2005).

NESTA Innovation Index Project

Another example of a project that aims to measure innovation is the UK’s NESTA Pilot Survey. The project focused on surveying two areas of government – National Health Services (hospitals and groups of hospitals) and Local Authorities. The survey was conducted by telephone with input from the survey used to develop a pilot version of the Public Sector Innovation Index. Prior to the pilot survey being conducted, six projects were commissioned to examine the feasibility of such a survey[2. Six feasibility projects were provided by the Technopolis Group, the LSE Public Policy Group, DAMVAD, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and The Innovation Group between September 2008 and October 2009.]

The index is based on a scoreboard approach that uses data to generate indicators within four main areas. These being:

  • innovation activity

  • innovation capability

  • impact on performance

  • wider conditions for innovation.

US Partnership for Public Service work on Innovation

The US Partnership for Public Service[3. For more information about the US Partnership for Public Service refer to
and for more information about the study refer to] is an American initiative to revitalise the US federal government. The Patnership engaged the consultancy firm Hay Group to explore a number of questions dealing with innovation in the public service that ultimately seek improving government effectiveness and delivering better results.

  • How innovative is the federal government?

  • What drives innovation in federal agencies?

  • What can leaders do, if anything, to promote innovation within their agencies and teams?

The study examined these questions from the perspective of federal employees, identifying three survey questions that best reflect employee opinions on innovation and using them as the basis for creating an innovation score. These questions were:

  • I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better

  • I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things

  • Creativity and innovation are rewarded

The analysis identified six workplace conditions that have a disproportionately high impact on the overall innovation score. It indicates that public services managers or leaders can improve
innovation within their agencies by creating an environment in which the following conditions thrives:

  • Employees are recognized for providing high-quality products and services

  • Employees are given real opportunities to improve their skills

  • Employees are involved in decisions that affect their work

  • Employees are given a sense of personal empowerment with respect to work processes

  • Employees are provided with opportunities to demonstrate their leadership skills

  • Leaders work to gain employees’ respect

The Korean Government Innovation Index

The Government Innovation Index (GII) was developed by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs in South Korea in the mid 2000s. This tool was designed to gauge the level of innovation of organisation in the Korean Public Sector. The tool assists with determining how well an organisation innovates amidst changing environments[4. For further details about the Korean approach see]

References and Suggested Reading

  • Annerstedt, P and Björkbacka, R (Statistics Sweden) 2010, Feasibility study of public sector organizations, a report commissioned by the Measuring Public Innovation (MEPIN) Project, February 2010

  • Arundel, A. 2011, Measuring Innovation in the Australian Public Sector, report commissioned by APSII Project, 30 June 2011 (In Draft)

  • Australia. Government 2.0 Taskforce 2010, Engage getting on with government 2.0 : government response to the report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce, The Government, [Canberra, A.C.T.]

  • Australia. Australian Public Service Commission 2010, State of the Service Report: State of the Service Series 2009-10, November 2010

  • Australia. Australian Public Service Commission 2011, State of the Service Report: State of the Service Series 2010-11, November 2011

  • Australia. Deparment of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research 2010, Australian innovation system report 2010, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science & Research, [Canberra, A.C.T]Australia

  • Australia. Deptartment of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research 2011, Australian innovation system report 2011, Department of Innovation, Industry, Science & Research, [Canberra, A.C.T]

  • Australia. Management Advisory Committee 2010, Empowering change : fostering innovation in the Australian public service, Management Advisory Committee, [Canberra, A.C.T.]

  • Australian National Audit Office 2009, Innovation in the public sector: enabling better performance, driving new directions: better practice guide, Australian National Audit Office, [Canberra, A.C.T.]

  • Bloch, C 2010, Mapping public sector innovation – towards a management framework, Conference on Measuring Public Sector Innovation, 8 February 2010, Copenhagen

  • Bloch, C 2010, Measuring Public Innovation in the Nordic Countries: Final report, a report commissioned by the MEPIN project

  • Bloch, C 2010, Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation: Module 1 – Conceptual Framework, Report commissioned for the MEPIN Project, March 2010

  • Bloch, C 2011, Measuring Public Innovation in the Nordic Countries (MEPIN), Report commissioned for the MEPIN project, February 2011

  • Bloch, C; Bugge, M; and Slipersæter, S 2008, Measuring innovation in the public sector - key issues and concepts

  • Bloch, C; Jørgensen, L; Norn, M; and Vad, T (Damvad) 2009, Public Sector Innovation Index – A Diagnostic Tool for measuring innovative performance and capability in public sector organisations, an exploratory project commissioned by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA), October 2009

  • Bloch, C; Lassen Jørgensen, L; Norn, M and Vad, T (DAMVAD) 2008, Public Sector Innovation Index – A Diagnostic Tool for measuring innovative performance and capability in public sector organisations, Report commissioned by NESTA, October 2009

  • Borins, S. (2001): The Challenge of Innovating in Government, The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government, February 2001

  • Borins, S and Sandford F., 1949- 2008, Innovations in government : research, recognition, and replication, Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation [and] Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C

  • Bugge, M; Mortensen, S. and Bloch, C., 2011, Measuring Public Innovation in the Nordic Countries: Report on the Nordic Pilot Studies – Analyses of Methodology and Results, a report commissioned by the MEPIN Project

  • Bugge, M; Hauknes, J; Bloch, C; and Slipersæter, S 2010, The Public Sector in Innovation Systems – Module 1 – Conceptual Framework, a report commissioned by the MEPIN Project

  • Carr, Kim & Australia. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research 2009, Powering ideas : an
    innovation agenda for the 21st Century
    , Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, [Canberra]

  • Clark, J; Good, B; Simmonds, P (Technopolis Group) 2008, Mini-project 4: Innovation in the public and third sectors, a report commissioned by NESTA, 12 September 2008

  • Cutler, Terry & Cutler and Company & Australia. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research 2008, Venturous Australia: building strength in innovation, Cutler & Company Pty Ltd, [Melbourne, Victoria]

  • Damvad (2010), Summary note on the Conference on Measuring Public Sector Innovation, 8 February 2010, Copenhagen

  • Damvad (2010), Summary note on the Technical workshop – Measuring public sector innovation, 9 February 2010, Copenhagen

  • Deloitte 2009, Driving innovation in the public sector: Developing an innovation index, an exploratory project commissioned by NESTA, October 2009

  • Department of Agriculture & Food and Department of Commerce, Western Australia (2010), Thinking outside the box…Innovation in the WA Public Sector – A report from the
    WA Public Sector Innovation Workshop

  • Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (2011), Measuring Innovation in the Australian Public Sector, Consultation Paper 1.0, the Australian Public Sector Innovation Indicators (APSII) Project, June 2011

  • Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (2011), Working towards a measurement framework for public sector innovation in Australia: A draft discussion paper, the Australian Public Sector Innovation Indicators Project, June 2011

  • Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (2011), Measuring Innovation in the Public Sector: A Literature Review, the Australian Public Sector Innovation Indicators (APSII) Project, June 2011

  • Earl, Louise (2002) Innovation and change in the public sector: A seeming oxymoron, Statistics Canada catalogue 88F0006XIE, no. 1, Ottawa

  • Gallup Organisation (2011), Innobarometer 2010 Analytical Report: Innovation in Public Administration, January 2010

  • Hughes, A; Farren-Handford, M; and Baker, C (Ernst & Young) 2009, Public Sector Innovation Index: Exploratory Project, a report commissioned by NESTA, 30 October 2009

  • Hughes, A; Moore, K; and Kataria, N (2011), Innovation in Public Sector Organisations: A pilot survey for measuring innovation across the public sector. NESTA

  • Jørgensen, L (Damvad) 2010, Mapping user needs: For Nordic Project on Measuring Public Innovation, a report commissioned for the MEPIN project, March 2010

  • LSE Public Policy Group 2008, Innovation in Government Organizations, Public Sector Agencies and Public Service NGOs, Report commissioned by NESTA, September 2008

  • Moran, Terry AO & Australia. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet & Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration 2010, Ahead of the game: blueprint for the reform of Australian Government administration, Deptartment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, [Canberra, A.C.T]

  • Mortensen, P (CFA) (2010), Measuring Public Innovation in the Nordic Countries – Toward a common statistical approach: Survey methodology for measuring public innovation, Report commissioned for the MEPIN Project, March 2010

  • National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators, Working Party (NESTI) (2009), Measuring public sector innovation in Nordic Countries: Toward a common statistical approach, OECD, 19 May 2009

  • NESTI (2010), Creating guidelines for the measurement of public sector innovation. OECD Cote: DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI 19

  • NESTI (2010), Measuring public sector innovation in Nordic Countries: Toward a common statistical approach – Update on project and initial results of cognitive testing with respondents, OECD, 8 January 2010

  • NESTI (2010), NESTI Roadmap: A progress report of the activities of the Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators and Longer-term directions, OECD, 17 March 2010

  • NESTI (2010), The measurement of innovation in the public sector: some observations from testing a draft questionnaire in Finland, OECD, 14 January 2010

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2002, The measurement of scientific and technological activities: proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development : Frascati manual 2002, [6th ed.], OECD, Paris

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2010, The OECD innovation strategy: getting a head start on tomorrow, OECD, Paris

  • Statistical Office of the European Communities & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005, Oslo manual : guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data, 3rd ed, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [and] Statistical Office of the European Communities, Paris

  • The Innovation Unit (2009), An innovation index for the public sector, a project commissioned by NESTA, October 2009

  • United Kingdom Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (2008), Innovation Nation: Unlocking Talent, March 2008

  • Windrum P (2008a). “Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services”, in Windrum P and Koch P (eds) 2008 Innovation in public sector services: entrepreneurship, creativity and management, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, 3 -20

  • Yoon, J (2006), Korean Government Innovation: Strategies and Methodologies for Administrative Innovation, Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, South Korea, 27 March 2006.