Drivers and barriers to innovation in the Australian public service: a qualitative thematic analysis

• Autorzy: Wipulanusat Warit , Panuwatwanich Kriengsak , Stewart Rodney A. , Sunkpho Jirapon

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/emj-2019-0001

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The purpose of this paper was to identify common themes from archival records related to innovation in the Australian Public Service (APS). A thematic analysis was conducted to review and evaluate archival records which consisted of transcripts from senior manager presentations at Innovation Month seminars from 2014 to 2018 and other related official documents. This empirical study addressed innovation from the leaders’ perspective, reflecting upon their experience. Analysing themes within archival records helped to gain insights from various perspectives of leaders on how they regard an innovation agenda for the APS. Three themes emerged from archival records: (1) innovation characteristics; (2) drivers of innovation; and (3) barriers to innovation. Synthesis of these drivers and barriers can provide important insights for senior APS managers on how they can enhance their organisations’ ability to innovate in order to respond to digital disruption challenges and opportunities. Variety of perspectives with leader’s perceptions informs about authors’ selection of the research question among consistent patterns and legitimates the salient themes as input for QSR NVivo 11.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

thematic analysis; public sector innovation; drivers of innovation; barriers to innovation; Australia

PL

analiza tematyczna; innowacja w sektorze publicznym; czynnik napędzający innowacje; bariera dla innowacji; Australia

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostockiej
• Czasopismo: Engineering Management in Production and Services
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 11, no. 1
• Strony: 7--22
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 61 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Wipulanusat Warit

• Walailak University, Thailand

autor

Panuwatwanich Kriengsak

• Thammasat University, Thailand

autor

Stewart Rodney A.

• Griffith University, Australia

autor

Sunkpho Jirapon

• Thammasat University, Thailand

Bibliografia

• Altshuler, A.A., & Behn, R.D. (2010). Innovation in American government: Challenges, opportunities, and dilemmas. Washington, United States: Brookings Institution Press.
• Australian Public Service Commission. (2011). State of the Service Report: State of the Service Series 2010-11. Canberra, Australia: ACT.
• Australian Public Service Commission. (2014). State of the Service Report: State of the Service Series 2013-2014. Canberra, Australia: ACT.
• Australian Public Service Commission. (2016). State of the Service Report 2015-16. Canberra, Australia: ACT.
• Australian Public Service Commission. (2017). State of the Service Report 2016-17. Canberra, Australia: ACT.
• Barnett, J., Vasileiou, K., Djemil, F., Brooks, L., & Young, T. (2011). Understanding innovators’ experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1), 1-12.
• Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation: Cocreating for a better society. Bristol, United Kingdom: Bristol University Press.
• Bekkers, V., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2011). Innovation in the public sector. New York, United States: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Berry, F.S., & Berry, W.D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of Policy Process (2nd ed.). Colorado, United States: Westview.
• Bloch, C. (2010). Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Measuring innovation in the public sector in the Nordic countries: Toward a common statistical approach‟ (“Copenhagen Manual”).
• Borins, S. (2006). The challenge of innovation in government: Endowment for the business of government. Arlington, United States: PricewaterhouseCoopers.
• Bowden, A. (2005). Knowledge for Free? Distributed Innovation as a Source of Learning. Public Policy and Administration, 20(3), 56-68.
• Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
• Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford, United States: Oxford University Press.
• Creswell, J.W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage publications.
• Currie, G., Humphreys, M., Ucbasaran, D., & McManus, S. (2008). Entrepreneurial leadership in the English public sector: paradox or possibility? Public Administration, 86(4), 987-1008.
• Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 19(3), 495-522.
• Demircioglu, M.A. (2018). The Effects of Empowerment Practices on Perceived Barriers to Innovation: Evidence from Public Organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(15), 1302-1313.
• Demircioglu, M.A., & Audretsch, D.B. (2017). Conditions for innovation in public sector organizations. Research Policy, 46(9), 1681-1691.
• Deschamps, J.P. (2005). Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies. Strategy & Leadership, 33(5), 31-38.
• Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P.R. (2012). Management research. London, United Kingdom: Sage.
• Eggers, W.D., & Singh, S.K. (2009). The Public innovator’s playbook: Nurturing bold ideas in government. Cambridge, United States: Ash Institute, Harvard Kennedy School.
• Elison, S., Ward, J., Davies, G., & Moody, M. (2014). Implementation of computer-assisted therapy for substance misuse: a qualitative study of Breaking Free Online using Roger’s diffusion of innovation theory. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 14(4), 207-218.
• Evans, A.J., & Burger, V.L.J. (2016). An empirical investigation into innovation drivers and barriers in public sector organisations. International Journal of Innovation Science, 8(4), 404-422.
• Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using Thematic Analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
• Franza, R.M., & Grant, K.P. (2006). Improving federal to private sector technology transfer. Research Technology Management, 49(3), 36-40.
• Glor, E.D. (1998). What do we know about enhancing creativity and innovation? A review of literature. The Innovation Journal, 3(1), 1-8.
• Golembiewski, R.T., & Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational innovation and the science/craft of management. Current Topics in Management, 5, 263-280.
• Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82.
• Hadfield, L. (2010). Balancing on the edge of the archive: the researcher’s role in collecting and preparing data to deposit. Timescapes Working Paper Series, 2010(2), 60-74.
• Hamson, N. (2004). Why innovation doesn’t work: and what to do about it. The Innovation Journal, 9(1), 1-7.
• Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
• Kao, J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovation edge, why it matters, and what we can do to get it back. New York, United States: Free Press.
• Kellough, J.E., & Nigro, L.G. (2002). Pay for performance in Georgia State Government: Employee perspectives on Georgia gain after 5 years. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22(2), 146-166.
• Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. London, United Kingdom: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.
• Koch, P., & Hauknes, J. (2005). On innovation in the public sector: Academic Summary Report of Publin. Oslo, Norway: NIFU STEP, Publin Report No. D20.
• Langergaard, L.L., & Scheuer, D.J. (2012). Towards a deeper understanding of public sector innovation. In A.L. Macaulay, I. Miles, J. Wilby, L.Y. Tan, L. Zhao, & B. Theodoulidis (Eds.), Case Studies in Service Innovation (pp. 167-193). New York, United States: Springer New York.
• Latham, J.R. (2014). Research design canvas: A framework for designing and aligning the “DNA” of your study. Monument, Colorado: Leadership Plus Design, Ltd.
• Management Advisory Committee [MAC]. (2010). Empowering change: Fostering innovation in the Australian public service. Canberra, Australia: Australian Public Service Commission.
• May, T. (2001). Social research. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
• Miller, R. (1999). The Internet in twenty years: cyberspace, the next frontier? Foresight, 1(5), 467-472.
• Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3-20.
• Mulgan, G., & Albury, D. (2003). Innovation in the public sector. London, United Kingdom: Cabinet office.
• Myers, M.D. (1994). A disaster for everyone to see: An interpretive analysis of a failed is project. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 4(4), 185-201.
• Napier, C.J. (1989). Research directions in accounting history. The British Accounting Review, 21(3), 237-254.
• Nathan, H., & Thomas, C. (2012). A thematic analysis of a leadership speaker series. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 826-844.
• Neuman, W.L. (2005). Social research methods, quantitative and qualitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston, United States: Pearson.
• Page, S. (2005). What’s new about the new public management? Administrative change in the human services. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 713-727.
• Pärna, O. (2014). Managerial and contextual factors influencing innovation in information technologybased public sector services: an exploratory crossnational study. (Doctoral Dissertation), University of Tartu.
• Pollach, I. (2012). Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 263-287.
• Raipa, A., & Giedraityte, V. (2014). Innovation process barriers in public sector: A comparative analysis in Lithuania and the European Union. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(10), 10-26.
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students. Harlow, United Kingdom: Prentice Hall.
• Setnikar, C.S., & Petkovšek, V. (2013). Private and public sector innovation and the importance of cross-sector collaboration. Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(6), 1597-1606.
• Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.
• Varney, D.S. (2006). Service transformation: A better service for citizens and businesses, a better deal for the taxpayer. London, United Kingdom: TSO.
• Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K., & Stewart, R.A. (2017a). Exploring leadership styles for innovation: an exploratory factor analysis. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 9(1), 7-17.
• Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K., & Stewart, R.A. (2017b). Statistical data analysis of culture for innovation using an open data set from the Australian Public Service. In A. Calì, P. Wood, N. Martin, & A. Poulovassilis (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10365, pp. 78-89). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
• Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K., & Stewart, R.A. (2017c). Workplace innovation: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation. Management and Production Engineering Review, 8(2), 57-68.
• Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K., & Stewart, R.A. (2018). Pathways to workplace innovation and career satisfaction in the public service: The role of leadership and culture. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 26(5), 890-914.
• Yin, R.K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, United States: Sage publications.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).