Collaborative Innovation in Labor Market Inclusion

Abstract

This article deploys the concept of "collaborative innovation" to discuss key stakeholders' and service users' experiences of innovative labor market inclusion services. We draw on work by Sørensen and Torfing (2011, 2016, 2017 to frame collaborative innovation as a distinctive approach to the coproduction of services that respond to user needs, and highlight the importance of governance and leadership practices that foster mutual learning and boundary spanning innovation. The article reports on 102 interviews with service users (in this case, unemployed lone parents) and 117 interviews with key stakeholders involved in local partnerships. We identify benefits from such collaborative approaches in terms of innovative service design and positive outcomes for service users. We conclude that policy makers should consider the potential added value of collaborative innovation in labor market inclusion. Evidence for Practice• Collaborative innovation provides a useful framework for understanding public policy stakeholders' responses to wicked problems-in this case, the need for innovative labor market inclusion programs to respond to the needs of vulnerable unemployed jobseekers. • Collaborative governance and distributive leadership practices that empower local managers and employees may be important in laying the groundwork for multi-stakeholder collaboration and service innovation in labor market inclusion. • Boundary spanning managers and "keyworkers" can be important in building trust, joining-up services, and(crucially) empowering service users. • As policy makers seek innovative solutions to high unemployment in post-COVID-19 labor markets, there is value in considering the benefits of collaborative innovation as a route to more efficient and effective services.

Collaborative innovation and activation in urban labour markets

“…Yet, research from the UK, and other liberal welfare states, suggests that compulsory activation funded by the state and contracted out to mainly for-profit providers has actually produced more standardised services (Fuertes and Lindsay, 2016). Promoting collaborative innovation may therefore offer an opportunity to make good on policymakers’ unfulfilled promises of activation that is personalised and empowers vulnerable jobseekers (Lindsay et al, 2020).…”

“…For Torfing (2016: 237), the concept of collaborative innovation has particular power in public services given that issues ‘defined and recognised as public tend to invoke a collective ownership of the task of developing a new and innovative solution’, while the ‘wicked problems’ faced by policymakers can only be met by incentivising diverse public stakeholders to share expertise, knowledge, resources and networks. New forms of activity where diverse stakeholders engage in mutual learning, and participate as equals in (and take joint ‘ownership’ of) decision-making on the resourcing and content of public services are seen as the processes at the centre of collaborative innovation (Lindsay et al, 2020; Lopes and Farias, 2020; Torfing, 2016). As noted above, the sought outcome of collaborative innovation – the dependent variable of which we must find evidence if we are to claim that collaborative innovation has made a difference – may range from a break with the aims and design of existing services to establish genuinely new approaches, significant changes affecting ‘who delivers’ and ‘what is delivered’ in services; and/or a (hopefully positive) transformation in service users’ experiences at the frontline (Sorensen and Torfing, 2018).…”

“…Previous studies of activation have rarely specifically referenced this conceptualisation of collaborative innovation, although Lindsay et al (2020) have reported on the role of boundary spanning frontline workers in supporting such innovative practices in local labour market services, while Andreassen et al (2020) use the concept to frame a discussion of the varying success of practice-sharing initiatives among welfare providers in Norway. There is also a related social innovation literature that highlights the value of localised activation experiments, including in cities (Lindsay et al, 2018; Evers and Ewert, 2015).…”

“…Yet, research from the UK, and other liberal welfare states, suggests that compulsory activation funded by the state and contracted out to mainly for-profit providers has actually produced more standardised services (Fuertes and Lindsay, 2016). Promoting collaborative innovation may therefore offer an opportunity to make good on policymakers' unfulfilled promises of activation that is personalised and empowers vulnerable jobseekers (Lindsay et al, 2020). Sorensen and Torfing (2011: 848) have defined collaborative innovation as 'an intentional process that involves the generation and practical adoption and spread of new and creative ideas, which aim to produce a qualitative change in a specific context', with collaborative problem-solving across organisational and sectoral boundaries a key feature (Sorensen and Torfing, 2018).…”

Arguments for a post-pandemic Public Employment Eco System in Ireland

“…The concept of a state-led ecosystem tasks us with identifying how social institutions -political systems, social structures and social provisioning systems -can enable individuals to flourish within them (Brand-Correa & Steinberger, 2017). There is a strong evidence base that positive impacts can be delivered by more integrated approaches (Munday, 2007;OECD, 2016;Scharle et al, 2018), specifically in the area of employability services (Lindsay et al, 2020). Vertical or systemic integration requires comprehensive action plans to be prepared at a central level and cross-cutting and coordinated measures to ensure all measures work together.…”