Replication or reinvention?
Models of innovation diffusion
for public services
Jean Hartley
Professor of Public Leadership
Open University, UK
Danish innovation managers network
November 2016
Aims of this seminar
• To review the current understanding of diffusion as a
crucial aspect of public services innovation
• To explore different metaphors of diffusion for the
insights they bring
• To outline some implications for the practice of
innovation
• To think further about how learning is fundamental to
diffusion
• Political astuteness in innovation diffusion
• Lots of discussion and exploration of ideas, practices,
Three analytical phases of innovation
Invention
Impleme
ntation
4
Diffusion
Diffusion of innovation is the public sector’s
secret weapon
• Innovation studies often focus on “creativity” or
“invention” but until recently less interest in “diffusion”
(spreading good or promising practice) (Hartley, 2015;
Greenhalgh et al, 2004; de Vries et al, 2014; Korteland
and Bekkers, 2007)
• Public value may be created by sharing good or
promising innovations, not by ‘hoarding’ the innovation
(Hartley, 2015)
• It can be an effective way to spread improvements,
reduce risk, address political uncertainty, share learning
and reduce resources spent on invention (Hartley, 2013)
Public and private innovation
(Hartley, 2013)
• Lot to learn across sectors
• Variation within as well as across sectors
BUT
1. Pressures for innovation not primarily competition but
changing needs in society (though context changing e.g.
foundation hospitals and schools)
2. Public organizations and networks not the private firm as
the primary unit of analysis
3. Role of politicians and policy advisors in catalysing
innovation – need to deal with more than one source of
innovation and different processes of innovation
4. Service innovations have different features from product
innovations
5. The “public value” test of innovation’s role in improvement
(cf Benington and Moore)
6. Diffusion of innovation critical for public service
organizations, and based in relatively open networks not
closed alliances
What is innovation?
• New ideas which are implemented (i.e. Not just invention)
(Bessant, 2005)
• Disruptive or step-change. (Lynn, 1997; Osborne and Brown,
2005; Hartley, 2005) Different from continuous improvement.
“Large enough, general enough and durable enough to
appreciably affect the character or operations of the
organization” (Moore,)
• Recognised as such by key stakeholders – i.e. socially
constructed (Greenhalgh et al, 2004)
For public sector innovation:
Bason (2010, p.34) defines it as “the process of creating new
ideas and turning them into value for society”
Mulgan (2007, p.6) “The simplest definition is that public sector
innovation is about new ideas that work at creating public
value.”
But innovations do NOT need to be successful (Borins, 2008)
What is diffusion?
What is diffusion?
(A deceptively simple question)
• “the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time by members of a
social system” (Rogers, 2003)
• “the process by which individuals and firms in a
society/economy adopt a new technology or replace an
older technology with a newer” (Schoeb, 2014)
• “the spread of abstract ideas and concepts, technical
information and actual practices within a social system,
where the spread denotes a flow or movement from a
source to an adopter” (Wejnert, 2002)
Seminal text on diffusion:
Rogers (1962) and now in 5th edition 2003
The famous S shaped diffusion curve
Rogers’ approach is one of communication
“Diffusion is the process in which an innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among
members of a social system” (p.5)
Diffusion is affected by:
• Attributes of the innovation (relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability)
• Communication channels (mass media, similar
individuals, people in a network)
• Adopter categories (adopters, laggards etc)
• Social system (similarity of units, social norms, opinion
leaders and change agents)
• Rogers’ model can be very useful, notably for discrete
innovations (hand-washing in hospitals; hybrid corn;
weed sprays). Focus is the innovation.
• But more difficult where the innovation is multidimensional and service-based. Harder to evaluate
whether adoption has happened or not; some elements
may be adopted but not others; more subjective views
about the innovation; policy context affects adoption
(Greenhalgh et al 2013).
• Denis JL et al (2002) Complex innovations may have a
‘hard’ element and a ‘soft element’. The hard element
may remain unchanged but the soft elements will be
modified according to circumstances.
Engineering metaphor:
diffusion as replication
Particularly for central governments and for top-down
driven change, diffusion is sometimes approached as
though it is an engineering challenge:
Replication, roll-out, main-stream
Copy and paste, plug and play
Traditional assumptions of diffusion:
- innovation push
Social unit with promising practice
or new policy
R
Receiver
R
R
R
Evidence is not sufficient to create diffusion
• It took the British Navy 264 years to go from having the
evidence on how to prevent and cure the skin disease
scurvy to actually giving sailors citrus fruit (evidence:
1601; adoption 1865) (Rogers, 2003)
• Many examples of non-spread of good practices eg
healthcare (Fitzgerald et al, 2003)
• The knowing-doing gap (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000)
• Diffusion needs tacit knowledge not only explicit
knowledge (Hartley and Rashman, 2007)
• Firms over-rely on explicit knowledge (O’Dell and Grayson,
1998)
• Social interaction helps in the sharing of tacit knowledge
in particular (Nonaka, 1994)
Diffusion of innovation in local government
(Hartley et al, 2007)
Taking ideas and implementing them from high performers/innovators
in the Beacon Scheme in local government:
 63% adapted a Beacon idea
This shows adaption more than adoption
 29% accelerated implementation of an existing idea
Interviews said it reduced risk; helped with confidence; helped to
mobilise support; argument to others they would be left behind;
avoiding mistakes and dead-ends; building on what already done
 8% based improvement closely on the innovator
Replication rarely occurs (Behn, 2008) except in near-laboratory
conditions (also Nelson and Winter, 1977)
Denis JL et al (2002)
Complex innovations may have a ‘hard’ element and a
‘soft element’. The hard element may remain unchanged
but the soft elements will be modified according to
circumstances.
Horticultural metaphor: graft and grow
(Hartley and Benington, 2006)
• Modifications undertaken
to suit local conditions
• Choice of innovator to
learn from based on
already recognising some
similarity (surface or
underlying similarity)
• Understanding context and
culture is important in
diffusion.
Diffusion and adaptation into different
sectors (recombinant innovation)
More recombinant innovation/diffusion
The Formula 1 pit stop
Great Ormond St Hospital
“Harvesting” ideas and practices
from other actors can save time and money
The ideas and practices are already there, but can be used in a
different way (fire service, children’s surgery)
The importance of connecting with others, to find and use ideas.
It means looking outwards with curiosity not expecting innovation to
only come from within.
What are the implications for strategy to see innovation as about
harvesting ideas from a range of sources?
Also need a sense of what you are trying to achieve – it is
collaboration with a purpose.
Innovation is defined as being new to the
organization/partnership or users deploying it
(West, 1990; Lynn, 1997)
Miranda:
O brave new world that has such people in it!'
Prospero:
`Tis new to thee
The Tempest (Shakespeare)
(and courtesy of Chris Yapp)
Diffusion turns into innovation
replication
adaptation
Recombinant
/”innofusion”
What’s in a metaphor?
• Which metaphor do you tend to draw on most? Why?
How does it help your work? How does it hinder your
work?
• Share your thoughts with others.
• Are there other metaphors about how innovation is
spread/taken up?
Learning as an approach to spreading
innovation
Knowledge creation is required each time diffusion
happens. It is about unlearning old practices, exploring
new possibilities and adapting and developing new
practices.
It involves both tacit and explicit knowledge creation
(Nonaka, 1994)
Those organizations which already have the capacity to
learn are more able to use new learning (absorptive
capacity) (Hartley and Rashman, 2013)
Learning about innovation over time
• Diffusion requires organizational and inter-organizational
learning to foster organizational capacity and policy
learning.
• Learning develops over time
• Empirical research (Hartley and Rashman) over 9 years
with whole population of English local government
• Research shows shift from learning to imitate to
learning to innovate
Questions on organizational
learning and innovation
• How does organizational learning contribute to
innovation?
• What explains the spread (and non-spread) of
population-level learning across local government ?
• Why is there a shift from learning to imitate to learning to
innovate over time?
Institutional context of change
• Institutional field emphasizes influences on learning of
organizational environment, spatial and temporal factors
(Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron 2001).
• Much institutional theory tends to focus on pressure to
conform – mimetic isomorphism, active copying (DiMaggio an
Powell 1983).
• Critics argue isomorphism risks overlooking local,
Cumulative model of learning (Kim 1998)
• “All organizations are learning systems.”
• A crisis can play an important role in organizational
learning leading to step change.
• Absorptive capacity: interplay of organization’s preexisting knowledge base, and intensity of effort
directed at learning to solve problems.
• Migratory knowledge enables tacit knowledge
acquisition from another location.
• “Catching up” through sequences of learning.
Cumulative learning
Organizational knowledge and learning are cumulative:
• a) A minimal prior knowledge base allows imitation
• b) A greater knowledge base permits creative
adaptation
• c) An extensive knowledge base produces an
innovative organization
(Kim 1998)
Phases Of Learning:
Imitation, Adaptation And Innovation
Organizational learning
(Adapted From Kim, 1998)
Extent of prior knowledge increases capacity for next phase
Phase 1
Duplicative imitation
Phase 2
Adaptation
Phase 3
Creative
innovation
Empirical research over 9 years:
the English Beacon Scheme
Aim: A national initiative to improve performance of English local
government (and some other local public services eg police, fire):
1. To provide national recognition to best performing local
authorities (high performance or innovation) through a national
annual competitive award in service themes
2. To share “best practice” (sic) to enable weak or mediocre local
authorities to “learn from the best” and to improve
Longest-standing policy instrument of reform (1999-2009) of last
Government but least commented on
Outline of the Beacon Scheme
(1999 to 2009)
Competitive award scheme open to all 388 English
local authorities plus local public services e.g. police,
fire, national parks, and passenger transport
National Panel selects approximately 10 themes per
year for awards, and decides on winners following
application
Applications can be single or joint
Three criteria: excellent or innovative service in
nominated theme; good overall corporate
performance; plan to share good practice
Awarded for one year
Range of learning events
Key features of research design
Longitudinal: over 9 years
Data on the population (n=388) of English local authorities
Beacons and non-Beacons (not biased towards innovators)
Qualitative and quantitative
Case studies over time and 3 surveys
Multi-respondent i.e. elected members, strategic and
operational managers, front-line staff, agency partners, and
civil servants
‘Hard’ performance measures and ‘soft’ learning measures
Robust data: high response rates and high quality data
Very large data set
Evaluation and advice
on Beacon Scheme policy
Regular evaluation evidence and advice to Independent
Advisory Panel for Beacon Scheme, and Government
ministers
Major contribution to 2008 policy review: “objective and
reflective work” for reviewing scheme
Key facts about Beacon Scheme
1885 applications for award over ten years of Scheme.
458 awards given (24 per cent success rate)
Up to round 10, only 33 local authorities had not applied for
the award, and just 1 council had not participated in beacon
learning activities.
 Over 12,000 participants accessed Beacon support
(IDeA 2010).
Learning and innovation in the Beacon
Scheme 1999-2008: three phases
The Beacon Scheme phase one
(1999 – 2001): Duplicative imitation
Mixed responses (sceptical to engaged)
Dissemination emphasised achievement not how got to
there
Overlooked contextual factors and organizational processes
Focus on “best practice” push by Beacons
Only a few felt that they had learned a great deal (8%)
Under-theorising of inter-organizational learning
Failed to distinguish tacit and explicit knowledge
Under-performing authorities lacked absorptive capacity
Authorities with more extensive knowledge base benefited
The Beacon Scheme
Phase two (2001 – 2004): Adaptation
 Less experimental, more performance indicators in award (in tune with
wider public service reform approach)
 More ambitious themes and inclusion of partners in award
 Scheme included innovation as a goal not just ‘best practice’ (though
tension with performance indicators)
 More emphasis on how Beacons had innovated/improved their performance
 More preparation by learners before Beacon visits (indicating learning
approach)
 Greater awareness of the value and methods of sharing learning as central
to organizational change
 Interest in “learner pull” not just “Beacons push”
 Learning approach extended: tacit/explicit distinction; regional networks;
peer mentoring; migratory knowledge.
 Active process of transfer of learning to local context: 63% adapted ideas
The Beacon Scheme
Phase three (2004 – 2008):
Creative Innovation
 Beacons seen as ‘gold standard’ of award schemes in UK
 Local government now widely involved either as Beacon or learner, or both.
• Greater interest in how to give awards to innovators (still tension with
performance indicators)
 More policy learning between national and local government
 Modest increases in financing of scheme by national government
 More extensive education programme nationally on Beacons and learning
 More peer to peer focus (sharing learning rather than Beacons push)
 Tailored programmes of engagement more extensive
 More focus on innovation and how to support and sustain it. Interest in
promising and next practice.
 Evidence of cumulative learning, adaptation and innovation at
organizational and population levels
• 2006 survey – even higher levels of acceleration (46-68% cf 29% in 2004)
The role of learning in the diffusion of
innovation
In public and private sectors, organizational learning can be
source of strategic renewal
Research shows learning is socially created (role of
migratory knowledge; trust; preference for peer to peer
exchange)
Cumulative learning over time leads to shifts in population
level system
Imitation
Adaptation
Creative innovation
Phases Of Learning:
Imitation, Adaptation And Innovation
Organizational learning
(Adapted From Kim, 1998)
Extent of prior knowledge increases capacity for next phase
Phase 1
Duplicative imitation
Phase 2
Adaptation
Phase 3
Creative
innovation
Key enablers of inter-organizational learning
(Hartley and Rashman, 2007)
Policy and practice context
Recipient Organization
Originating Organization
Conceptual framework
Systems to identify and
promote good practice
Designs knowledge transfer
Distinguishes different
knowledge requirements
Experience of learning
exchange and networks
Resources and methods for
knowledge transfer
Enabling Processes
Relevant context
Reciprocal knowledge
exchange and dialogue
Customisation of
knowledge and choice of
transfer methods
Trust, collaboration,
challenge and common
perspectives
First-hand person to
person transfer
Respect for diversity
Organizational framework for
learning
Capacity to share and receive
knowledge
Capacity and resources to adapt
and implement learning
Effective internal communication
systems and networks
Evaluation models and focus on
outcomes
Champions, and distributed
leadership
Key learning enablers and enablers in
your organization
What are the key learning enablers in your organization
which support innovation?
And the key learning barriers?
What can you do to help to support learning to underpin
innovation in your organization?
Public value and contest in the diffusion of
innovation
Public value: Mark Moore (1995) – What is the value
which public organizations create given that they don’t
have profits or markets as the marker of value?
Developed further by John Benington (2011)
Two dimensions of public value:
 What does the public most value?
 What adds value to the public sphere?
These are difficult questions. Who decides? How to
handle the tensions between these?
Innovation is inherently controversial in public
services
• There isn’t a single “public value”
• Debates and discussions help people to consider a range of views
and agree to come to some sort of conclusion
• Habermas (1963) – “communicative reason” – understanding in
society developed through interactive talk not solely from experts
• It also means that measuring or assessing public value in
innovation cannot be defined solely by technical expertise, but
may often require the involvement of a range of stakeholders –
elected politicians, the public, regulatory bodies, professionals.
• Views of the public value achieved may change over time
• So understanding of innovation and its diffusion need to be linked
to democratic dialogue
What capabilities do innovators and
innovation nurturers need?
Persistence in the face of adversity:
“Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without
losing your enthusiasm”
Attributed to Winston Churchill
Two reports
Cross-national research
in three countries on political astuteness
of public managers
Political astuteness
political
antennae
‘metis’
George Eliot’s view of politics
in Felix Holt
“Fancy what a game of chess would be if all the
chessmen had passion and intellects, more or
less small and cunning; if you were not only
uncertain about your adversary’s means, but a
little uncertain about your own; if your knight
could shuffle himself on to a new square by the
sly; if your bishop, in disgust at your castling,
could wheedle your pawns out of their places;
and if your pawns, hating you because they are
pawns, could make away with their appointed
posts that you might get checkmate on a
sudden…….
Felix Holt (cont’d)
…..You might be the longest-headed of deductive
reasoners, and you might be beaten by your own
pawns. You would be especially likely to be beaten, if
you depended arrogantly on your mathematical
imagination, and regarded your passionate pieces
with contempt.”
What are the key components
of capability
We developed and validated a model of the key skills of
leadership with political astuteness
(now available as a diagnostic tool)
50 items in a measure of political astuteness as
practised by middle and senior managers
Asked people to rate themselves
– and the most senior managers in their organization
they worked with
The key components of political skill
Strategic Direction and Scanning
Building Alignment and Alliances
Reading People and Situations
Interpersonal Skills
Personal Skills
Time for a quick quiz
• Think about your own skills – here is a sample of the
questions in the full survey. (And we don’t tell people
what the categories are usually)
• Think about the evidence you have for the rating you
give yourself
• You don’t have to share your results with anyone
unless you want to.
• Are there areas you are strong on? Areas you would
like to develop your skill and judgement more?
Howell (2005) on innovation champions
Effective champions
Ineffective champions
Scout widely for new ideas and information.
Wide general knowledge
Diverse interests
Use few sources for new ideas and information. Rely
on written information
Narrow range of interests
View role broadly, well informed about issues that
affect the organization
See role as more limited, less knowledge about the
organization
Frame idea as opportunity
Tie idea to positive organizational outcomes
Frame idea as threat
Tie idea to negative organizational outcomes
Howell (cont’d)
Use formal and informal influence channels
Use formal channels only
Internal locus of control
External locus of control
High self-monitors, analyse potential
reactions of targets and tailor persuasion
strategy to this
Low self-monitors: unable or unwilling to
accurately perceive reactions of others – use
same persuasion strategy in all circumstances
Further information and papers:
Jean Hartley
Professor of Public Leadership
Department of Public Leadership & Social Enterprise
Open University Business School
Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
[email protected]
www.open.ac.uk