Presentation to conference in Urbino: 1st International EIBURS-TAIPS Conference on Innovation in the public sector and the development of e-services DESP, University of Urbino, April 19-20 2012

1. Manchester
Manchester
MIIR
Instituteof
Institute of
O
Innovation
Innovation
Research
Research
Innovation
Service Innovation
Public Service Innovation
what messages from the collision of innovation studies and services research?
Ian Miles
Ian.Miles@mbs.ac.uk, Ian.Miles@hse.ru
1st International EIBURS-TAIPS Conference on:
Innovation in the public sector and the development of e-services
DESP, University of Urbino, April 19-20 2012

2. Public Services – pioneers in large-scale computer use
Back-office
efficiency:DHSS
Longbenton
ICL 2970
Late 1970s
Pictures from:
http://www.cuin.co.uk/oldbuggas/layby.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/icl_2900_computers

3. Public Services – basic office automation
Local
government;
Back-office
computerisation
dramatically
increasing speed
of service
delivery

4. Electronic Public Information – mid 1980s
LAVA had over 120 members at peak
Local Authority Videotex
Association
Library Services
Highway Services
 Council Meetings
 Careers, Job Openings
Contact Us
Techno-enthusiasts in local government. Vision of public access to data
and ultimately transactional and interactive applications to widen democracy

5. The Prestel story
• Introduced by Post/Telecomms – “public authority”- in many
countries (prestige/ national champions/ learning to be information
societies. Engineers looking for new services, initially as public utilities.
• In UK unpromising pilot studies were ignored – innovators were
convinced that this was the wave of future, and that they had the
design paradigm (not used to consumer choice).
• Expectations of massive take up – millions – but slow growth, never
much more than 100k adopters in UK
• Many information services put material online – but TV manufacturing
industry was uncooperative (teletext as competitor!)
• Consumer resistance to tying up TV and telephone, especially where
little value-added information content; consumer adoption low: mainly
business (esp. travel) and hobbyist use.
•French Minitel story completely different – helped by free provision of
terminals incorporating screens, new telecomms links – but also more
open attitude to content providers and more transparent pricing; and
learned from experiments about importance of interaction
(messagerie).

6. NHS Direct
Inspired by example of telephone banking – why can’t we offer a user-friendly one-stop shop.

7. Defence Research – saving soldiers
Worked with
Cambridge team
using new tools for
design of steels;
then needed to
persuade
manufacturers to
try out production
(and engineering
firm to punch
holes).
Key individual drove
project over a
decade.

8. Competition?
• Certainly not the only driver of innovative effort:
• Engineering and management aesthetics
• and fashions
• Public interest motivations
• Often these sorts of personal commitment factor are important in creating
product champions who are vital for large-scale project success. (Which can
be a problem with scaling up of services: loss of original visionary.)
• Competition at level of individuals seeking status and social prestige, in
professional communities and work environments, and often route to mobility
within (bureaucratic and other) organisations.
• Structurally: Competition in terms of assessment of performance against
other comparable organisations – NPM-type performance indicators (and
their sometimes perverse use by policymakers and citizens).
• Competition against private service providers (with different cost structures,
often related to lack of full-service, universal service requirements), and
against self-service and other innovations using new technologies or social
innovations.

9. Public Services – definition for purpose of this
account
O Public administration and
defence, compulsory social security
(division 84)
P Education (division 84)
QA Human health services
(division 86)
NOT State-Owned Enterprises in, e.g., post and QB Residential care and social work
telecomms, transport, utilities… Though activities (divisions 87 + 88)
sometimes there are striking parallels
Bigger question of “public services industry” R Arts, entertainment and recreation
(divisions 90 to 93)
Mainly human and informational transformations.

10. Stylised Features
• Public services are typically very large scale organisations –
especially where run by national governments or large regional bodies.
• Services that interact with the public typically have numerous local branches
of several types. Some are more or less replicas of other local branches, some
may be specialist establishments.
• Often service ”consumers” have many touchpoints, extended over lengthy
time, and possibly with a succession of establishments and service workers.
“User” is often multiple, including (e.g.) wider family/community (in different
roles).
• Local branches have moderate to high levels of managerial and professional
autonomy – subject to political influence; and variations across services.
• Multi-level governance structures are common.
• Limited ability to raise funds or determine long-term budgets.
• Some have very high levels of highly qualified staff – education, health, social
work, often with many specialisms within these (and often much “boundary
work”) .Some are dominated by mid-range staff – public administration, social
security. Some are more a matter of low-skill workers – sanitary services and
the like. Thus, almost as varied as the service sectors themselves.

11. Diversity in Workforce education
EU, 2000 HIGH SKILL
Education
Business Sers._
Health & Soc. Sers.
Other Sers. FIRE
Manufacturing Trade
Agriculture Transport Pub.
HORECA Admin.
LOW MEDIUM
11
SKILL SKILL

12. Innovation Research
• Traditional (Manufacturing) Innovation Research – mainly focused on
technological product and process change. (assumes it is generally
beneficial, at least for competitiveness.)
• Service Innovation research – service innovation (new service
development) vs innovation in services
• Assimilation versus Demarcation perspectives.
Demarcation stresses:
oInvolvement of Customers/Clients (rather than remoteness from
production):
• Coproduction (interactivity)
• Product/process interpenetration
• Experience (content)
• Interaction with staff (mutual learning)
oIntangibility (rather than physical goods):
• Comparability, demonstrability
• Issues of IPR, less standard technology/ R&D focus
• Services as newcomers to advanced technology
oOrganisational innovation (business models/ policy?)

13. Non-technological innovation (does
involve technique and knowledge)

14. Organisational (institutional)
innovation
Assesses and
supports best
practice –
issue of
metrics – but
critique from
lobbies about
suppressing
some
“innovations”
http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/

15. Service Innovation Research
• Much survey work addresses innovation in services - private service firms
(of size >ten employees)
• Reports different patterns in services of different types – and diversity across firms
within sectors – could thus anticipate the same across different elements of a broad
public service, if not necessarily across different local branches of one such element.
• Confirms that many
services emphasise
organisational innovation
more
•But technological
innovators also tend to be
organisational innovators
•Huge variation in levels
and styles of innovation
oKIS > manufacturing
oTraditional services
report low levels
(partly a scale issue)

16. Schematic Service Process
[inspired not least by Rob
Glushko’s extensive work on front
and back stage service processes] Business Partners
If back-office
innovation is largely
driven by pursuit of
efficiency, then we
might expect rather
similar trajectories in Back Front User ( and
both public and Office Office wider user
private services – and
office-based aspects
(back (front stage) communities)
of manufacturing stage)
Even if less
competitiveness
driver, scale of public
services may
promote early Employees Organisation Infrastructure Infostructure
adoption of office IT -
& organisational
innovation?

17. Schematic Service Process
May be
multiple back Many different
Business Partners roles; outsourcing.
offices –
representing PPPs, suppliers of
different layers innovative goods
of and services – role
organisational of third sector.
hierarchy – up
Back Front
to the User ( and
responsible Office Office wider user
ministries/ (back Service – and
(front stage) communities)
govt. site of new
stage)
Departments – service
and functional delivery in case
specialisms of service
e.g. hospital innovation
laboratories vs.
Employees Organisation Infrastructure Infostructure
management
structures

18. Barras’ Reverse Product Cycle +
New IT –
Supply new IT plus
technological Business Partners organisational
revolution in
advice/models
service
industries –
introduced Users employ
initially for own platforms
efficiency Back and access
reasons in Front User ( and data from
large-scale Office Office wider user many sources
data (back communities) to increase
(front stage)
processing stage) own
capabilities in
Learning about IT service
capabilities, and coproduction
exploitation of data
on individuals (etc.), New services
Employees Organisation Infrastructure Infostructure
together with produced or
improved IT, means delivered by
scope for improved new IT
quality in service

19. New and Improved Public Services
Third Sector – social
Business Partners innovation as well
Data analytics, as technological
data sharing
across New roles for
boundaries Users and
(though some Communities
privacy issues Back Front
and the like).
User ( and – including
Office Office wider user user
(back communities) innovation
(front stage)
Scope for rapid stage)
New services
feedback e.g. from based on better
experiments, data on user
prototypes; new characteristics
service design and contexts,
Employees Organisation Infrastructure Infostructure
and on more
New data and understanding – neurosciences, ecological data, and intensive data
problem-specific tools including new IT (visualisation, robotics) but also exchange – not
others relating to specific services (e.g. pharmacy, surgery). just e-delivery

20. P den Hertog,
Location – and Dimensions - of Service W van der Aa,
M W. de Jong, (2010)
"Capabilities for managing service innovation:
Innovation (den Hertog) towards a conceptual framework",
Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 21 I(4), pp.490 – 514
Value System Business Partners Customer
Interaction
Revenue Service
Model Concept
Back Front User
Office Office (wider user
(back (front stage) communities) Delivery
Delivery stage) (Technology)
(Organisation)
Innovations often Employees Organisation Infrastructure Infostructure
involve change on
several dimensions

21. P den Hertog,
Capabilities required for Service W van der Aa,
M W. de Jong, (2010)
"Capabilities for managing service innovation:
Innovation (den Hertog) towards a conceptual framework",
Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 21 I(4), pp.490 – 514
Value System Business Partners Customer
Interaction
Partnering,
M&A, Marketing
Revenue procurement Service
Model Concept
Back Front User
Sales,
Office
Finance,
strategy Office
after sales
(wider user
(back (front stage) communities) Delivery
Delivery stage) Technology (Technology)
(Organisation) HRM
“Sales” and “revenue
Plus, public services: model” terminologies
capabilities in less relevant:
Employees Organisation Infrastructure Infostructure
mediating between performance
political and assessment and
operational indicators more.

22. Public Service Innovation Prospects
• Major challenges:
• Fiscal Crisis (continued) – pressure to cut costs (e.g. use of paraprofessionals)
and outsource (including to third sector). Scope for political crises and media
agenda-setting.
• Demographics and Global Issues creating new conditions of social needs
(including those relating to service success)
• User expectations, demands and activity
• Rapid technological change in IT, and much learning across many
organisations; new “consumer” platforms, new functionalities (e.g. locational
data, health monitoring)
• Privacy and data security (and other system vulnerabilities)
• Opportunities to learn:
• Open Innovation
• Adaptation of ideas and frameworks – including lessons from New Service
Development e.g. project-and product orientation, analysis of innovation relative
to market (not just supplier), measurement of quality and performance; and from
Service Design tools, philosophies, communities.
• New IT capabilities, e.g. data analytics
• “Consumers” as a Resource.

23. Implications for Innovation Studies
• Synthesis approach contributions:
• Nature and trajectory of innovations as shaped by factors beyond competition,
regulatory compliance, and the usual suspects.
• Variety across both public and private services in terms of governance,
regulation, public and media relations, etc. Possibly some sets of service where
similarities and differences depend on features other than public/private
characterisation. Need to explore and establish ways of assessing capabilities.
• Networks of innovators include organisations with distinct drivers and structural
features, which need to be seen in wider terms than “barriers”.
• Between theory and practice:
• Grand challenges confronting our societies almost always require combination of
goods and services, private and public action. Understanding public service
innovation can inform analysis and design of grand responses. (Example –
active independent living, with health monitoring and lifestyle enhancing
technology and communication systems supported by new structures of health
and social care service organisation and provision.)
• Or more modestly, public-private partnerships are commonplace (though
groundrules evolving), and wider understanding required to grasp innovation in
such circumstances.

24. END OF PRESENTATION