Type, as defined by the Copenhagen Manual |
41.8% organizational innovation |
The innovation in these cases resulted from interactions between individuals and their organizations, unlike the traditional model of the innovation process which treats individual agency as the main source of innovation (Osborne & Brown, 2011Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king?Public Administration, 89(4), 1335-1350. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01932.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011...
). Organizational innovation can promote learning and innovative capacity to offer quality services. (Salazar & Holbrook, 2004Salazar, M., & Holbrook, A. (2004). A debate on innovation surveys. Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 254-266. doi: 10.3152/147154304781779976 https://doi.org/10.3152/1471543047817799...
). |
26.6% process innovation |
A product-service continuum was observed in which no clear boundary is distinguishable between the two, corroborating the arguments of Djellal et al. (2013)Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services?Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.0...
and Sundbo (1997)Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of Innovation in Services. The Service Industries Journal, 17(3), 432-455. doi: 10.1080/02642069700000028 https://doi.org/10.1080/0264206970000002...
. |
17.6% communication innovation |
The number of cases of communication innovation observed provide empirical evidence of the existence of this kind of innovation, defined as something new in the way the organization communicates with its public. This type of innovation, according to Bloch (2010)Bloch, C. (2010). Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Copenhagen: MEPIN. can contribute to the improvement of organizational accountability and hence social control. |
14.0% product innovation |
Study findings contradict authors like Barcet (2010)Barcet, A. (2010). Innovation in services: A new paradigm and innovation model. In F. Gallouj & F. Djellal (Eds.), Handbook of innovation and services: A multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 49-67). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781849803304.00011 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849803304.00...
, who argue that the public services only innovate incrementally or with the use of technology, and provide support for the view of Gallouj (2002)Gallouj, F. (2002). Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(2), 137-154. doi: 10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00126-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00...
that there is a lack of techniques adequate for the analysis and measurement of the innovation taking place in public services. |
Scope |
52.0% nation-wide repercussions |
The high incidence of impact at the national level is positive and expected since the competition is conducted in the federal public administration. Given the ease of copying innovations in services (Gallouj & Savona, 2010Gallouj, F., & Savona, M. (2010). Towards a theory of innovation in services: A state of the art. In F. Gallouj & F. Djellal (Eds.),Handbook of innovation and services: A multi--disciplinary perspective (pp. 27-48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781849803304), this level of diffusion might pose a threat to private sector organizations, but in the public sector it may represent an important driver, given that the diffusion of award-winning innovations is in the interest of the government, as specified in the very objectives of the Award (ENAP, 2014Escola Nacional de Administração Pública [Enap]. (2014). Fundação Escola Nacional de Administração Pública. Regulamento do 18oconcurso inovação na gestão pública federal. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://inovacao.enap.gov.br/images/Documentos/regulamento18.pdf http://inovacao.enap.gov.br/images/Docum...
) and pointed out byNassuno (2007)Nassuno, M. (2007). Inovação na administração pública estadual: O 1o prêmio excelência em gestão pública do Estado de Minas Gerais.Revista Do Serviço Público, 58(1), 77-96. and Vargas (2010)Vargas, E. R. de. (2010). Disseminação de iniciativas inovadoras premiadas no concurso inovação na gestão pública federal (1996-2006).Cadernos Enap, (34), 58-115.. |
30.7% local repercussions |
8.0% state-wide repercussions |
Sector of origin |
Health and education together represent 32.82% of award-winning cases, nearly a third of the total. |
The areas of the greatest user interaction are the very ones that produce the largest number of innovations, as found previously in studies on innovation in services (Djellal et al., 2013Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services?Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.0...
), social innovation (Novy & Leubolt, 2005Novy, A., & Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2023-2036. doi: 10.1080/00420980500279828 https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098050027982...
) and the co-production of public services (Bovaird, 2007Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846-860. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007...
; Joshi & Moore, 2004Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. The Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31-49. doi: 10.1080/00220380410001673184 https://doi.org/10.1080/0022038041000167...
). |
Thematic Area xType |
22.3% of awards went to "citizen service". The highest absolute number of awards in this thematic area involved process innovation (30 cases). |
The strong showing of innovation in "citizen service" seems indicative of the concern of the public sector with improvement of the delivery of services to citizens, as argued by Salazar and Holbrook (2004)Salazar, M., & Holbrook, A. (2004). A debate on innovation surveys. Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 254-266. doi: 10.3152/147154304781779976 https://doi.org/10.3152/1471543047817799...
, a characteristic also found by Borins (2001)Borins, S. (2001). Encouraging innovation in the public sector.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 310-319. doi: 10.1108/14691930110400128 https://doi.org/10.1108/1469193011040012...
with respect to the provision of alternative services. This finding is also coherent with the theory of innovation in services which points to co-production or the service relationship as one of the main characteristics of service provision (Djellal et al., 2013Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services?Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.0...
; Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997Gallouj, F. (1997). Towards a neo-Schumpeterian theory of innovation in services? Science and Public Policy, 24(6), 405-420.). |
21.0% of awards were for the "improvement of work processes". In this category, organizational innovation responded for the greater number of awards. |