Surfacing Innovation in Bureaucracy
Diving deep to support innovation in large organizations
There is a consensus that big things need to change in government bureaucracies; we must innovate. However, innovation can seem impossible in a bureaucracy. I’ve had many veteran public servants express as much. Progress can feel shallow and slow despite all the talk of change and transformation at best.
All transformation results in change, but not all change is transformative. Transformative change involves paradigm shifts (new ways of thinking and seeing the world) and the introduction of novel practices (new ways of doing and relating to the world). The kind of change needed today is transformational, and innovation labs (or any other space to prototype culture change and novel ways of working) are the most promising ways of breaking free from the dependent path of bureaucratic organizations.
Creating space to prototype culture change is the most promising way of breaking free from the dependent path of bureaucratic organizations.
Government leaders and executives call for whole-of-government approaches that provide seamless service delivery to the public. We promote “going Digital,” adopting ethical AI, and becoming “omnichannel.”
These are lofty and worthwhile goals.
The problem is that our bureaucracies weren’t set up to do any of that. Furthermore, innovation is often treated as a nice-to-have or virtue signalling. As Jenny Lewis puts it, referring to the rise of innovation labs in government:
“A more critical reading of this situation would extend this to the possibility that design approaches and labs, when they are the methods and organizations hosting the design of policy, are more important for signalling a government’s innovation credentials than for doing anything novel.”
Innovation is imperative despite the possibility that governments engage in this kind of signalling. Regardless of your sector, I believe innovation is worth saving from the buzzword abyss.
We have witnessed the fatigue and disillusionment accompanying large, imposed change initiatives and innovation theatre. Performative transformation strategies are avoidable, and we can get lasting results in government. To do so requires us to be prepared for discomfort, unlearning, and considering changes to our organizations’ untouchable, given (formal and informal) structures. Labs can provide a safe environment to do this and find a path to becoming a more innovative organization.
An innovation lab with a Theory U compass can explore the depths of culture needed for transformation in ways that the SS Bureaucracy cannot.
The OECD Observatory for Public Sector Innovation defines innovation as the realization of:
- New products, services and processes
- New policies and systems
- New ways of thinking and of understanding the world
- New ways of acting, organizing and relating to the world.
This definition is great because it goes beyond innovation as a novel output of a system and accounts for forms of innovation that will enable policy, program, product and service innovations. That is to say: innovation in the latter two forms defined above will be transformational. I want to take this a step further and propose that these transformational forms of innovation are required to achieve viable innovations of the former.
When seeking out new products, services, processes and policies, ask yourself this question from Mel Conway (Conway’s Law): “Is there a better design not available to us because of our organization?” Fragmented organizations deliver fragmented experiences.
Further reading: How internal information siloes lead to a fragmented user experience.
SS Bureaucracy: It ships, but it doesn’t dive deep
An organization’s culture upholds the systems and underlying structures that produce its results and their effects. Calls for “innovation” would indicate that the results and products delivered are inadequate or undesirable and require change. However, any attempt to change these results and effects without innovation in the underlying system will fall short. After all, culture eats more than just strategy for breakfast.
Tamami Komatsu et al. discuss the importance and challenges of going deep into an organization to co-design services with citizens (emphasis added):
This [user-centred design] approach encourages public sector organizations to take a deep look into the lives of citizens and provide value as it is needed rather than seeking to do more of what they already do. In other words, the challenge is to create the value proposition based on the citizen’s real needs — often in relation to other services coming from other agencies — and then to align internal processes accordingly. This provides an interesting perspective for innovation in the public sector, given the fragmented nature of its supply — i.e. the numerous agencies that are involved in satisfying public needs — by encouraging the sector to look at how citizens use public services in response to life events.
Service innovation requires public sector organizations to engage (and work together) with users in novel ways. Furthermore, public sector organizations need to work together in ways they have not before to break away from doing “more of what they already do” and align the internal organization to meet citizens’.
These types of interventions, however, must go beyond a cosmetic use of design that seeks to merely make services look better. A quick example of such initiatives can be seen in digitalization initiatives that merely change the visual identity of the website without changing the offer or re-organizing content and flow to improve the experience of citizens or make their journeys easier.(Komatsu et al.)
Innovation requires more than superficial changes. As Komatsu et al. put it: “[cosmetic efforts] fail to re-design services based on a re-framing of the problem but rather employ design tools to embellish or re-market existing services.” Human-centred design can facilitate the re-framing required for innovation. This aligns well with the OECD OPSI definition of innovation, as reframing problems supports “the realization of new ways of thinking and understanding the world.”
Despite the power of human-centred design and innovation, their application is far from consistent in the public sector.
Episodic use of design — by failing to engage in strategic design — hinders transformative change. This is in line with how innovation in the public sector has been described in literature: as being episodic (Sørensen and Torfing 2011, p. 847), “driven by accidental events that do not leave public organizations with a lasting capacity to innovate (Eggers & Singh, 2009). (Komatsu et al.)
Focusing innovation efforts on new policies, processes and services without addressing the underlying ways of acting, organizing, thinking, understanding and relating to the world is akin to “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” …or on SS Bureaucracy, for that matter.
This brings me to icebergs.
Innovation beyond the visible tip of the iceberg.
We can imagine the OECD OPSI definition of innovation as an iceberg with the first two types sitting visibly above the water’s surface and the latter two out of sight deep below the surface. Transformation requires innovation at these depths. This cannot be achieved without the ability to dive deep into the culture of an organization and surface strategic insights.
This brings us to iceberg number two: corporate culture.
Culture is deeper than strategic plans and vision statements.
… but that’s the level typically visible to SS Bureaucracy. Below the surface in the deep lie all sorts of invisible, intangible elements of culture and informal social structure that produce the effects visible on the surface.
To pursue transformational change in a way that can sustain innovation, we need to dive deep. But it’s scary and unknown down there! Not to mention, SS Bureaucracy is not equipped to dip below the surface. It is rightfully busy stabilizing and managing the effects floating visibly on the surface.
This brings us to the last iceberg model that will help chart a course for organizational transformation.
Theory U
Theory U is a change management method that enables collaboration and innovation by offering an approach to moving from a narrow individual to a broader, collective way of seeing the world. This approach improves system awareness by encouraging empathy and promoting introspection among group members. If you have ever used the Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing frame, this will seem familiar, but on “super serum.”
Theory U will help any transformation initiative frame its activities and chart its course to get below the surface of what is holding change efforts back. Innovation labs (studios, accelerators, incubators, etc.) equipped with this framework can be a powerful vehicle for organizational change.
SS Labo: The Role of Labs
Governments need to approach change a little more cautiously than the private sector. This is because stability is a priority of the government, and the sheer scale of the potential risks of public harm and damaged trust surpasses that of any particular business.
… public sector innovation is stuck between the need for change and the need for stability. Public bureaucracies must somehow succeed at the balancing act of unleashing innovations while also maintaining socio-political stability. (Lewis)
Conversely, failing to effectively change, and adapt to the demands of our environment, risks public harm and damaged trust, too. Risk is inherent in the status quo.
So we need to figure this out.
Innovation labs can de-risk organizational change. They provide space and a facilitated practice for groups to develop a shared understanding of a problem and experiment with potential solutions. Innovation labs coupled with the functions of a parallel learning structure are a promising way of de-risking innovation, fostering organizational learning and advancing transformation.
An innovation lab with a Theory U compass can explore the depths of culture needed for transformation in ways that the SS Bureaucracy cannot.
This means that the work of a lab cannot stay in the lab, or the fruit it bears risks withering on the vine.
The answer, they claim, is for states to support “innovation bureaucracies” — constellations of public organizations that are capable of delivering agile stability. If governments create new organizations (like labs) which are led by charismatic outsiders, but these people and their networks do not become part of the routine of government, innovation in the public sector will not be sustained. (Lewis)
Labs operate and explore along the path of The Emergent System by building networks of innovators, making space for prototyping culture change, and growing influence by showing results (not telling). The Moment’s explanation of The Berkana Two-Loops Theory and Systems Change is one of the best I’ve read https://www.themoment.is/how-change-happens/
Conclusion
Creating a space to experiment with new ways of thinking and of understanding the world, and new ways of acting, organizing and relating to the world is vital for enabling innovation. It’s like playing a sport, performing on stage, or cooking. Reading about it, sending an email about it and having meetings about it isn’t going to make you a better player, performer or cook. This applies to whether you are pursuing a digital transformation agenda, seeking to improve your organization’s [insert discipline here] maturity, or looking to help your organization adapt to a changing environment.
What we practise, we become. Making time and space for practice is a surefire way to achieve organizational change. The processes and products of the lab all you to show the value and possibilities, not just tell. Your colleagues will believe it when they see it; they will be changed when they experience it. This is how you build a movement one moment at a time and spread innovation like wildfire. The alternative path will become irresistible.
References
Elisabete Ferrarezi, Isabella Brandalise & Joselene Lemos (2021) Evaluating experimentation in the public sector: learning from a Brazilian innovation lab, Policy Design and Practice, 4:2, 292–308.
Hawk TF, Zand DE. Parallel Organization: Policy Formulation, Learning, and Interdivision Integration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2014;50(3):307–336. doi:10.1177/0021886313509276
Lewis, Jenny M. (2021). “The limits of policy labs: characteristics, opportunities and constraints.” Policy Design and Practice, 4:2, 242–251.
McGann et al. (2021). “Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving.” Public Management Review. Vol. 23, №2, 297–316.
Stoll, Aline and Kevin C. Andermatt. (2021) “Tab the Lab: A Typology of Public Sector Innovation Labs.” Conference Paper IRSPM.
Sydow, Georg & Schreyögg, Georg & Koch, Jochen. (2008). Organizational Path Dependence: Opening the Black Box. Helfat Huff & Huff. Gilbert. 10.5465/AMR.2009.44885978.
Tamami Komatsu, Mariana Salgado, Alessandro Deserti & Francesca Rizzo (2021) Policy labs challenges in the public sector: the value of design for more responsive organizations. Policy Design and Practice, 4:2, 271–291.
Whicher, Anna (2021). Evolution of policy labs and use of design for policy in UK government, Policy Design and Practice, 4:2, 252–270.
