Methodology

This literature review has followed the usual ‘forensic’ process used in the public sector based on online searches and reference-tracing and document review. This has been augmented by the use of a subscription-based bibliographic dataset (Thomson-Reuters Web-of-Science) to carry out more complex keyword-based searches.

One caveat to note, as regards the current state of the literature on public sector innovation, is that the prominence of literature produced by central government departments and agencies together with NGOs means that there are some shortcomings in citations and proper attribution of authorship. This means that specific contributions to understanding are not always clear.

Another caveat relates to the scope of this literature review. The ANAO’s work on public sector innovation addresses the challenge of identifying ways of enhancing public sector innovation within the constraints defined by existing managerial practices and legislative arrangements. In contrast, the complementary work on public sector innovation carried out by the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) and the major initiative entitled Reform of Australian Government Administration (RAGA) focus on recommended changes to this legislative framework and associated changes in managerial practices. Naturally, there is far greater scope for drawing upon the extensive literature on private sector innovation in the MAC and RAGA work.

The ANAO’s efforts have focused on supporting the longer-term reform agenda by seeking to characterise the public sector innovation process as it exists at present — and to promulgate a decision-support framework designed to maximise the effectiveness of current approaches. It is preferable to maximise the effectiveness of the system we currently operate within (over the short-term) before developing a strategy for improving the architecture of this system (over the longer-term).

This has limited the review of the literature to material useful for understanding and improving upon current arrangements in the public sector without requiring changes in managerial practices and legislation.

This pragmatic perspective has also led to an emphasis on defining a suitable holistic decision-support framework for supporting public sector innovation within currently prevailing opportunities and constraints. The ANAO was particularly keen that the Better Practice Guide articulate a balanced approach to the innovation life cycle that considered all key phases, including progress reviews, drawing lessons and (if necessary) re-focussing efforts — not just the ‘headline’ activities associated with developing and implementing new approaches per se. Consequently, the literature review has sought to identify lessons and insights throughout the innovation cycle as a whole. This holistic approach is a particularly important issue for public sector innovation because, unlike in the private sector, determining success and failure in innovation cannot be left to market processes. Public sector innovators must consider not just the merits of the potential innovation but how the innovation can be stopped and ‘undone’ if it turns out to have unexpected negative consequences.

The reader is referred to the work carried out by MAC for a more comprehensive discussion of the relevant of private sector innovation practices, procedures and lessons.

Previous: Introduction

Next: Profile of the Emerging Field of Inquiry into Public Sector Innovation