دانلود رایگان مقاله لاتین نوآوری خدمات در سازمان دولتی از سایت الزویر
عنوان فارسی مقاله:
بازخوانی تاثیر ریسک پذیری در مورد مزایای نوآوری های خدمات در سازمان های دولتی
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:
Rethinking the effect of risk aversion on the benefits of service innovations in public administration agencies
سال انتشار : 2017
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله نوآوری خدمات در سازمان دولتی اینجا کلیک نمایید.
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
2. Innovation in public services and organizational risk aversion
There is a growing perception that innovation can contribute to service enhancement and improved productivity in public services, leading to increased pressure on agencies to be more innovative (Borins, 2001; Hartley et al., 2013; Osborne and Brown, 2011). Service innovations in the public sector can vary from highly novel or transformative services to small-scale incremental changes (Hartley, 2005), they can encompass one type of innovation or incorporate multiple innovation types which make them more complex and difficult to implement (Torugsa and Arundel, 2016a); and they can be developed in-house or based on adapting new services that have already been implemented elsewhere (Arundel et al., 2015; Bugge and Bloch, 2016). The diffusion of service innovations to other public agencies is particularly important to improving the quality and efficiency of services across the public sector (Hartley, 2005). However, innovation does not always result in improved benefits. For example, new public services can lead to an increase in choices that are not desired by citizens, organizational learning without benefits to future innovations, or decreased performance due to a failure to overcome mistakes, obstacles and dead-ends during innovation implementation (Hartley, 2005). The implementation of an innovation in public services, as Hartley et al. (2013, p. 822) write, involves “a complex and iterative [but non-recursive] process through which problems are defined, new ideas are developed and combined, prototypes and pilots are designed, tested and redesigned; and new solutions are implemented, diffused, and problematized”. This process inherently involves risk, but in the public sector potential losses from risk are given more weight than potential gains from an innovation, leading public servants to perceive risk as associated with negative outcomes and largely ignore the potential for positive outcomes (Ritchie, 2014). As contended by Ritchie (2014, p. 13), “the costs [risks] of an [public service] innovation are almost certainly measurable, specific and traceable to the decisions of individuals”, but the benefits of the innovation are often uncertain, difficult to measure and diffused over numerous recipients. This underestimation of relative gains, combined with higher penalties for failure compared to rewards for success and with policy ambiguity that divorces rewards from performance, damages incentives to innovate and unfavorably affects risk perception (Boyne, 2002; Ritchie, 2014). The risks of innovating in the public sector are further exacerbated by four external factors that can act to support a culture of risk aversion. First, public service innovations are exposed to high levels of public scrutiny and media attention (Albury, 2005). Since service innovations are publicly visible and frequently need to balance contested goals and outcomes (Hartley et al., 2013), they can be exposed to intense scrutiny before the full completion of what is often a lengthy implementation process (Albury, 2005; Arundel and Huber, 2013). Second, even ifthe service innovation is an adaptation of an idea that has been effectively used elsewhere, in a new contextit may not deliver its intended benefits or failto be accepted by its intended users, the media or politicians (Brown and Osborne, 2013). Third, many agencies produce and deliver services to vulnerable individuals, groups and communities, and consequently the risks to the wellbeing and quality of life of citizens are of great significance when experimenting with new services or ways of doing things (Albury, 2005; Brown and Osborne, 2013). The last factor is the co-existence of different, competing regimes of public sector governance (traditional public administration, New Public Management (NPM), and networked governance), with each having different rules for the role of politicians, managers and citizens and thereby having different strengths and weaknesses for how innovation occurs (for further discussion of implications of different modes of governance for innovation; see Hartley, 2005, 2016). The factors that drive an organizational culture of risk aversion are likely to vary by the governance structure of each agency, with political aversion to risk an important factor in traditional public administrations, a lack of sufficient incentives a factor for NPM, and concerns over citizen well-being a factor in networked governance. Since there can be elements of all governance regimes present at the same time in public agencies (Hartley, 2016), the different factors behind a culture of risk aversion could interact to increase or decrease risk aversion, creating differences in the level of organizational risk aversion across agencies. Unfortunately, we lack data on the governance structure for each agency
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله نوآوری خدمات در سازمان دولتی اینجا کلیک نمایید.
کلمات کلیدی:
