Innovations in public services seminar, Third Sector Research Centre and UK Innovation Research Centre, 17 June 2013

1. The Development of Public Service
Innovations by ServPPINs
Paul Windrum
Innovations in Public Services Seminar
TSRC & UK-IRC
Imperial College London
17th June 2013

3. Public Sector Innovation:
A Nascent Research Topic
What do we understand by ‘public sector innovation’?
ServPPINs in public sector innovation
What are the key drivers / barriers?

4. Public Sector Innovation:
A Nascent Research Topic
What do we understand by ‘public sector innovation’?
ServPPINs in public sector innovation
What are the key drivers / barriers?

5. Public Sector: A Key Source of Innovation
What technology has transformed the
business world more than any other over the
past 15 years?

6. Tim Berners-Lee

7. Biotech
James Watson, Francis Crick & Rosalind Franklin
Nanotechnology
Andre Geim & Konstantin Novoselov: 2010 Nobel prize
winners for experiments in graphene.

8. Public Funding of Science
There is recognition of how universities and large
publicly funded scientific organisations develop
scientific & engineering breakthroughs (‘blue skies’
research).
These lead to radically new products and whole sectors
once taken up and commercialised by private firms.
BUT we find key innovations from many other public
sector organisations as well…

9. SPACE AGENCIES
GPS navigation
Satellite TV
(NASA, ESA)
Mobile telephony
GSM standard developed
by the European Telecommunications Standards
Institute (ETSI) for technologies underpinning 2G
cellular networks.

10. MILITARY
Laser technologies
without military and university engineering
developments there would be no CDs, no DVDs, no
BluRay.
Compression technologies
Without Israeli and US military encryption and
compression techniques there would be no MP3 /
iPod.

11. PUBLIC HEALTH SECTOR INNOVATIONS
Intraocular lens (IOLs)
Stents

12. Education for type 2 diabetes
Portable AEDs

13. Non-Technological Innovations by Public Sector
Organisations
• New services based on existing technologies
• Process Innovations in delivery of existing services
(e.g. day cases for minor surgery)
• Organisational Innovations: e.g. bringing together of
different branches /components of the service
delivery (clinical pathways).

14. Knowledge-intensive public sector services (KIPS)
• Education (NACE 85)
• Health (NACE 86)
• Public labs & R&D services (NACE 72)
• Social services (NACE 87 & 88)
• Technical & Environmental services (various)

15. Public Sector Innovation:
A Nascent Research Topic
What do we understand by ‘public sector innovation’?
ServPPINs in public sector innovation
What are the key drivers / barriers?

16. ServPPINs: Public-Private Innovation Networks
in Services
ServPPINs are an important means of organizing the
development, production, and delivery of
new/improved services across public sectors.
• Public sector user-led innovation.
• Needs driven: address major social problems;
improve quality and reach of services
• Address institutional failure = market failure +
political failure

17. ServPPINs
ServPPINs differ to PFIs and outsourcing relationships:
1. Co-operative innovations between public, private
and third sector organisations.
- each partner brings a distinct set of competences
and funding to the development of a new/improved
public service + sharing of risk.
2. Public sector service providers are the key
knowledge providers, organise the formation of a
ServPPIN, and integrate the inputs of partners.

18. ServPPINs
ServPPINs differ to PFIs and outsourcing relationships:
1. Co-operative innovations between public, private
and third sector organisations.
- each partner brings a distinct set of competences
and funding to the development of a new/improved
public service.
2. Public sector service providers are the key
knowledge providers - organise the formation of a
ServPPIN, and integrate the inputs of partners.

19. Public Sector Innovation:
A Nascent Research Topic
What do we understand by ‘public sector innovation’?
ServPPINs in public sector innovation
What are the key drivers / barriers?

20. Two case studies
• Automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) in Austria
(Doris Schartinger).
• Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid in Manchester.

21. AED case study: Key Drivers & Barriers
The problem: first-aid measures not applied within five
minutes of a cardiac arrest results in a high number of
avoidable deaths per year.
Institutional failure:
(1) Market failure: no production of AEDs of required
quality that were easy-to-use by the general public.
(2) Political failure:
no training of general public on how to use AEDs
+ lack of legislation to ensure AEDs are both
widely available (in workplace and in public
venues).

22. AED case study: The Network
Leadership & Organisation of ServPPIN Network
Led by prominent medical practitioners at General
Hospital of Vienna and by Austrian Red Cross.
Other enrolled participants:
Media: national and local TV and Radio organisations.
Some notable politicians.

23. AED case study: Success Factors
Addressing market failure:
• Stimulate development & production (by local
producers) of an AED that gives voice instructions to
the (layperson) user, and automatically delivers the
therapeutic dose of electrical energy.
Addressing political failure:
• Raising awareness of need for reform, via media,
amongst general population and leading ‘talking
heads’ in society.
• New legislation making it compulsory for all
workplaces to have hand-held AEDs and staff trained
in their use.

24. AED case study: Success Factors
• Trust: history of personal connections and
engagement in previous ServPPINs.
• Complementary & non-competing interests of public,
private and third sector participants.
• Well-defined IPR.

25. Transport Innovation Fund: Key Drivers & Barriers
The problem: To integrate train, bus & car-related
services to meet in international emissions targets and
reduce economic and health costs of increasing urban
congestion
Institutional failure:
(1) Market failure: not profitable for a private sector
firms to offer a coordinated set of local services.
(2) Political failure: lack of local political to support a
body to be in control of integrated services.
Lack of provision in national legislation.

26. Transport Innovation Fund: The Network
Leadership & Organisation of ServPPIN Network
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive
(GMPTE).
• Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) : An open
competition for funding run by the UK Department
for Transport
• Opportunity to finance a major upgrading of the
public transport infrastructure and services in
Greater Manchester - GMPTE bid for £2.75 billion.
This would transform the GMPTE into a key
coordination organisation in Greater Manchester.

27. User facing
competences
Service characteristics
S1
S2
.
.
Ss
PC11
PC12
.
.
PC1t
UC1
UC2
.
.
UCc
UP1
UP2
.
.
UPu
User/ Voter preferences
User / Voter competences
PP11
PP12
.
.
PP1m
SP1
SP2
.
.
SPp
GMPTE provider
preferences
National Policy maker’s
Preferences (Dept. Transport)
National Policy
Maker’s competences
SCB1
SCB2
.
.
SCBf
Back office
competences
SCU1
SCU2
.
.
SCUf
PC21
PC22
.
.
PC2t
PP21
PP22
.
.
PP2m
Local Govt’s
preferences
Local Govt’s ’
competences

28. User facing
competences
Service characteristics
S1
S2
.
.
Ss
PC11
PC12
.
.
PC1t
UC1
UC2
.
.
UCc
UP1
UP2
.
.
UPu
User/ Voter preferences
User / Voter competences
PP11
PP12
.
.
PP1m
SP1
SP2
.
.
SPp
GMPTE provider
preferences
National Policy maker’s
Preferences (Dept. Transport)
National Policy
Maker’s competences
SCB1
SCB2
.
.
SCBf
Back office
competences
SCU1
SCU2
.
.
SCUf
PC21
PC22
.
.
PC2t
PP21
PP22
.
.
PP2m
Local Govt’s
preferences
Local Govt’s ’
competences
Changing local power
relationships?

29. User facing
competences
Service characteristics
S1
S2
.
.
Ss
PC11
PC12
.
.
PC1t
UC1
UC2
.
.
UCc
UP1
UP2
.
.
UPu
User/ Voter preferences
User / Voter competences
PP11
PP12
.
.
PP1m
SP1
SP2
.
.
SPp
GMPTE provider
preferences
National Policy maker’s
Preferences (Dept. Transport)
National Policy
Maker’s competences
SCB1
SCB2
.
.
SCBf
Back office
competences
SCU1
SCU2
.
.
SCUf
PC21
PC22
.
.
PC2t
PP21
PP22
.
.
PP2m
Local Govt’s
preferences
Local Govt’s ’
competences
Conflict of interest:
Congestion Charge

30. Transport Innovation Fund: Failure Factors
Political failure:
• National TIF bid required part-funding by local
councils – stipulated to be raised by a congestion
charge (a targeted tax on car users).
• GMPTE unable to gain political agreement from local
councils on AGMA – 3 out of 10 councils voted
against the congestion charge.
• Regional referendum held: ‘No’ vote = 79%.
Note: No record of any society having voluntarily
voted for higher taxes.

31. Summary & Look Forward
• Public sector organisations are important
innovators in their own right.
Initiatives on Metrics for Public Sector Innovation
Pressing need for the UK to empirically measure the
direct contribution of public sector innovation to
national welfare, and the indirect contribution of links
with private and third sector innovation.

32. Knowledge-intensive public sector services (KIPS)
• Education (NACE 85)
• Health (NACE 86)
• Public labs & R&D services (NACE 72)
• Social services (NACE 87 & 88)
• Technical & Environmental services (various)

33. Summary & Look Forward
Examples in other countries:
Denmark: Measuring Public Innovation in Nordic
Countries (based on CIS)
S. Korea: Government Innovation Index
Australia: Public Sector Innovation Indicators Project
European Public Sector Innovation Scoreboard

34. Summary & Look Forward
ServPPINs are an important mechanism for organizing
the development, production, and delivery of
new/improved services across public sectors.
• Public sector user-led innovation.
• Needs driven: address major social problems;
improve quality and reach of services
• Address institutional failure = market failure +
political failure

35. Summary & Look Forward
Further research on ServPPINs.
• Expand the set of case studies in addition to
quantitative research.
• Examine the conditions required for the formation of
different types of ServPPINs (e.g. self-organising and
directed).
• Identify factors that affect the successful diffusion of
the new services developed by ServPPINs
• Implications Government policy: Need for ‘joined up’
IPR, Regional, and National Policy