A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process

Abstract

This article provides a systematic review of the empirical literature on barriers within public sector innovation processes, based on data from 63 articles. We investigate the nature of barriers. The studies were analysed based on four dimensions of barriers: i) their classification; ii) their interrelations; iii) whether they play distinct roles within stages of innovation process and iv) whether they vary in the types of innovations. We develop an empirically based framework to capture the complex nature of barriers. For this purpose, a new classification is also introduced to show that interaction-specific barriers emerge during the collaborative innovation process. Significantly we identify that the nature of barriers are more complex than has previously been recognized: they differ in process stages and innovation types. Moreover, they show interrelations across the innovation process by reinforcing each other. The findings show there is an emphasis on organizational barriers and implementation phase studies. We conclude with a discussion on how future research use quantitative and cross-national methods to examine: (1) interaction specific barriers, in particular, barriers with businesses and political bodies (2) design and sustainment phases of innovation (3) interrelations between barriers. 4 the concept of innovation in a normative positive way. Similarly, we do not approach the concept of barriers in a normative negative way. The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The first section details the methodology used for the systematic review. The second section and its subsections detail the results of the systematic review, initially providing details of the studies included and subsequently exploring the nature of barriers by examining their types, process characteristics, interrelations, and distinct variations on types of innovation. Finally, from our findings, we reach conclusions and provide a research agenda on barriers to PSI. METHODOLOGY Database Search Three strategies were used to identify eligible articles. First, we carried out an electronic search in Web of Science restricted to Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in title, abstract and keywords of articles. The term [innov*] was searched along with the terms for barriers: [obstacle* OR barrier* OR challeng* OR hinder* OR deter* OR difficult* OR bottleneck* OR problem* OR setback* OR hurdle* OR hamper* OR imped* OR obstruct*]. To define the public sector character of innovation we use the following terms: [municipal* OR "public administrat*" OR "public organi$ation*" OR "public management" OR government* OR "public service" OR "local government*" OR "e-govern*" OR "egovern* OR governance OR "public sphere" OR "public sector"]. Public or policy entrepreneurship has been studied connected with innovation (Roberts and King 1996) and so we searched the terms for barriers and public sector with the combination of [entrepreneur*]. This strategy resulted in a total of 3,524 articles. Second we selected EBSCO Business Source database ...

‘Double-taxing’ Indigenous business: exploring the effects of political discourse on the transfer of public procurement policy

“…Our findings make a broader contribution to studies of public procurement by showing how policies focused on social justice can become diluted when there are shifts in the desired outcomes that government is trying to 'buy' (McCrudden 2007). Our findings align with recent studies that have identified how a lack of clarity about policy goals (Martin, Berner, and Bluestein 2007) and contradictory policy expectations can complicate the public procurement process (Cinar, Trott, and Simms 2019;Knutsson and Thomasson 2014;van Buuren, Eshuis, and Bressers 2015). Prior research has highlighted the potential conflicting goals of public procurement policy related to the competing regulatory, commercial and socio-economic objectives (Erridge 2007).…”

“…Our use of critical discourse analysis has allowed us to illustrate how competing discourses shifted the focus of Indigenous public procurement policy from a progressive affirmative action agenda to a regressive, neo-liberal self-help agenda. The coupling of Indigenous procurement with the broader 'closing the gap' agenda shows how political meaning and contemporary political context can shape the policy transfer process (Korteland and Bekkers 2008;Lovell 2016) and influence the development and implementation of public procurement policy (Cinar, Trott, and Simms 2019). Our analysis highlights how increasingly conservative governments aligned the Indigenous procurement policy with the broader shift towards 'neoliberal sensibilities that seek to individualize a wide range of social ills' (Murray 2004, 50) and a neo-liberal agenda in relation to 'closing the gap' for Indigenous Australians (Pholi, Black, and Richards 2009;Howard-Wagner 2017).…”

“…Recent research has highlighted how attempts to implement new public procurement policies have been hampered by competing objectives and expectations, as well as the lack of commitment of partners (Cinar, Trott, and Simms 2019;Knutsson and Thomasson 2014;van Buuren, Eshuis, and Bressers 2015). To overcome these barriers, researchers have stressed the importance of clarity on policy goals (Martin, Berner, and Bluestein 2007) and the need to involve a broad range of stakeholders in the policy design (Erridge 2007;Mouraviev and Kakabadse 2015).…”

The population ecology of undesigned systems: an analysis of the Arizona charter school system

“…Likewise, such analysis can also inform system level policy making in ways that more purposefully foster organization level designs that are conducive to intended outcomes. This recommendation is especially promising for entrepreneurial initiatives in the public sector, such as the ACSS, where progress is often stifled by system-level governance models that are poorly structured and inadequately equipped to foster and support innovation (Cinar et al 2019;Levine and Wilson 2013;Mergel 2018).…”

The Dark Side of Public Innovation

“…Brandsen et al (2016, p. 307), for example, highlight that innovations are often precarious and vulnerable. The same authors also stress that, interesting ideas are often implemented at a small scale but do not result in broader changes (for a recent overview: Cinar et al, 2019). Our article on the dark side of innovation, however, does not focus on barriers in innovation processes and failures to realize a greater impact but on perverse outcomes.…”