Portraying innovation in the public service of Brazil: Frameworks, systematization and characterization

Sousa, Marcos de Moraes; Ferreira, Vicente da Rocha Soares; Najberg, Estela; Medeiros, Janann Joslin

doi:10.5700/rausp1213

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Administração (São Paulo)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION • Rev. Adm. (São Paulo) 50 (4) • Oct-Dec 2015 • https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1213 copy

Portraying innovation in the public service of Brazil: Frameworks, systematization and characterization

Retratando a inovação no serviço público brasileiro: modelos de análise, sistematização e caracterização

La innovación en el servicio público en Brasil: modelos de análisis, sistematización y caracterización

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Innovation is essential for improving organizational performance in both the private and public sectors. This article describes and analyzes the 323 innovation experiences of the Brazilian federal public service that received prizes during the 16 annual competitions (from 1995 to 2012) of the Award for Innovation in Federal Public Management held by the Brazilian National School of Public Administration (ENAP). It is a qualitative and quantitative study in which were employed as categories for analysis the four types of innovation defined in the Copenhagen Manual: product, process, organizational and communication. The survey results allow us to affirm that there is innovation in the public sector, in spite of the skepticism of some researchers and the incipient state of theoretical research on the subject. It was possible to observe that organizational innovation was the one with the highest number of award- -winning experience, followed respectively by process, communication and product innovation, with citizen services and improvement of work processes being the main highlights. The results showed that, although the high incidence of innovation occurs at the national level, a significant number of innovations also occur at the local level, probably because many organizations of the federal government have their actions spread only at this level of government. Concerning the innovative area, health and education predominate, with almost 33% of initiatives, which can be explained by capillarity of these areas and the fact that both maintain a strong interaction with the user. The contributions of this work include the use of theoretical model of innovation analysis in the public sector in Brazil still upcoming, and the systematization of knowledge in empirical basis for this innovation. In this sense, it also contributes to the development of the theory with the presentation of evidence that the characteristics, determinants and consequences of innovation in the public sector differ not only from innovation in the industry, but also from innovation in services in the private sector.

Keywords:
innovation; public administration; innovation award

Author (s)	Definition of Innovation	Types of Innovation
Schumpeter (1982)Schumpeter, J. A. (1982). A teoria do desenvolvimento econômico. São Paulo: Abril Cultural.	New combinations of a firm’s factors of production validated by the market.	Product, process, market, supply, organizational.
OECD (2005)Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2005). Manual de Oslo: Diretrizes para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação (3rd ed.). Brasília: OCDE/FINEP. –The Oslo Manual	"Implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations" (p. 46).	Product, process, organizational, marketing.
Earl (2002)Earl, L. (2002). Innovation and change in the public sector: A seeming oxymoron. Canada: Statistics Canada.	Innovation defined as organizational change and technological improvement.	Organizational, technological.
Halvorsen (2005)Halvorsen, T. (2005). On innovation in the Public Sector. Oslo: Publin/NIFU/STEP. – PUBLIN	"Social entity’s implementation and performance of a new specific form or repertoire of social action that is implemented deliberately by the entity in the context of the objectives and functionalities of the entity’s activities" (p. 9).	Service, process, administrative, system, concept, radical change of rationality.
Audit-Commission (2007)Audit-Commission. (2007). Seeing the light: Innovation in local public services. Northampton: Audit Commission/Belmont Press. doi: 10.1037/e621772007-011 https://doi.org/10.1037/e621772007-011...	Adoption of improved practices characterized by novelty, change, and improved performance.	Service, process or management, democratic, strategic.
Bloch (2010)Bloch, C. (2010). Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Copenhagen: MEPIN. – The Copenhagen Manual	"Implementation of a significant change in the way an organization operates of in products provided" (p. 27).	Product, process, organizational, communication.
Djellal & Gallouj (2005)Djellal, F., & Gallouj, F. (2005). Mapping innovation dynamics in hospitals. Research Policy, 34(6), 817-835. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.04.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.04... Gallouj & Weinstein (1997)Gallouj, F., & Weinstein, O. (1997). Innovation in services.Research Policy, 26(4-5), 537-556. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00030-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00...	Innovation in services is understood as a set of explanatory vectors (skills of the provider and client, technical characteristics and purpose of service delivery).	Radical, improvement, incremental,ad-hoc, recombination and formalization. In addition to this typology, also presented are organizing principles or logics: extensive, intensive and regressive.

Type	Definition
Product	"Introduction of a good or service that is new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses. This includes significant improvements in customer access, ease of use, technical specifications or other functional characteristics that improve the quality of the good or service offered" (Bloch, 2010Bloch, C. (2010). Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Copenhagen: MEPIN., p. 29).
Process	"Implementation of a new or significantly improved method for the creation and provision of goods and services. This includes significant changes in methods, equipment, and/or skills with the aim of improving quality or reducing costs or time of delivery" (Bloch, 2010Bloch, C. (2010). Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Copenhagen: MEPIN., p. 30).
Organizational	"Implementation of significant changes in the way work is organized or managed in an organization. This includes new or significant changes to management systems, workplace organization and/or programs to improve learning and innovation capacity" (Bloch, 2010Bloch, C. (2010). Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Copenhagen: MEPIN., p. 30).
Communication	"Implementation of a new method of promoting the organization or its goods and services, or new methods to influence the behavior of individuals or other organizations" (Bloch, 2010Bloch, C. (2010). Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Copenhagen: MEPIN., p. 31).

Type	Frequency	Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Organizational	135	41.8	41.8
Process	86	26.6	68.4
Communication	57	17.6	86.0
Product	45	14.0	100.0
Total	323	100.0	100.0

Scope	Total	Porcentage
National	167	51.70
Local	99	30.65
State	26	8.05
Regional	23	7.12
International	8	2.48
Total	323	100.00

Area	Cases	Porcentage	Cumulative Porcentage
Health	59	18.27	18.27
Education	47	14.55	32.82
Social Security	36	11.15	43.96
Finance	33	10.22	54.18
Economy	29	8.98	63.16
Management	26	8.05	71.21
Communication	19	5.88	77.09
Justice	12	3.72	80.80
Agriculture	11	3.41	84.21
Defense	11	3.41	87.62
Energy	10	3.10	90.71
Environment	7	2.17	92.88
Agricultural Development	6	1.86	94.74
Social Welfare	5	1.55	96.28
Transport	4	1.24	97.52
Labor and Employment	3	0.93	98.45
Culture	2	0.62	99.07
Foreign Affairs	2	0.62	99.69
Tourism	1	0.31	100.00
Total	323	100.00

Thematic Area	Type
Thematic Area	Communication	Organizational	Process	Product	Total	Porcentage
Citizen service	18	9	30	15	72	22.29
Improvement of work processes	4	37	20	7	68	21.05
Planning, management and institutional performance	1	49	6	2	58	17.96
Institutional arrangements for coordination and/or implementation of public policies	11	10	19	11	51	15.79
Information management	6	13	8	8	35	10.83
Management and development of people	13	16	0	2	31	9.60
Evaluation and monitoring of public policies	4	1	3	0	8	2.48
Total	57	135	86	45	323	100.00

Categories	Results	Implications
Type, as defined by the Copenhagen Manual	41.8% organizational innovation	The innovation in these cases resulted from interactions between individuals and their organizations, unlike the traditional model of the innovation process which treats individual agency as the main source of innovation (Osborne & Brown, 2011Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king?Public Administration, 89(4), 1335-1350. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01932.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011... ). Organizational innovation can promote learning and innovative capacity to offer quality services. (Salazar & Holbrook, 2004Salazar, M., & Holbrook, A. (2004). A debate on innovation surveys. Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 254-266. doi: 10.3152/147154304781779976 https://doi.org/10.3152/1471543047817799... ).
	26.6% process innovation	A product-service continuum was observed in which no clear boundary is distinguishable between the two, corroborating the arguments of *Djellal et al. (2013)Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services?Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.0... and Sundbo (1997)*Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of Innovation in Services. The Service Industries Journal, 17(3), 432-455. doi: 10.1080/02642069700000028 https://doi.org/10.1080/0264206970000002... .
	17.6% communication innovation	The number of cases of communication innovation observed provide empirical evidence of the existence of this kind of innovation, defined as something new in the way the organization communicates with its public. This type of innovation, according to Bloch (2010)Bloch, C. (2010). Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation. Copenhagen: MEPIN. can contribute to the improvement of organizational accountability and hence social control.
	14.0% product innovation	Study findings contradict authors like Barcet (2010)Barcet, A. (2010). Innovation in services: A new paradigm and innovation model. In F. Gallouj & F. Djellal (Eds.), Handbook of innovation and services: A multi-disciplinary perspective (pp. 49-67). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781849803304.00011 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849803304.00... , who argue that the public services only innovate incrementally or with the use of technology, and provide support for the view of Gallouj (2002)Gallouj, F. (2002). Innovation in services and the attendant old and new myths. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 31(2), 137-154. doi: 10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00126-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00... that there is a lack of techniques adequate for the analysis and measurement of the innovation taking place in public services.
Scope	52.0% nation-wide repercussions	The high incidence of impact at the national level is positive and expected since the competition is conducted in the federal public administration. Given the ease of copying innovations in services (Gallouj & Savona, 2010Gallouj, F., & Savona, M. (2010). Towards a theory of innovation in services: A state of the art. In F. Gallouj & F. Djellal (Eds.),Handbook of innovation and services: A multi--disciplinary perspective (pp. 27-48). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781849803304), this level of diffusion might pose a threat to private sector organizations, but in the public sector it may represent an important driver, given that the diffusion of award-winning innovations is in the interest of the government, as specified in the very objectives of the Award (ENAP, 2014Escola Nacional de Administração Pública [Enap]. (2014). Fundação Escola Nacional de Administração Pública. Regulamento do 18oconcurso inovação na gestão pública federal. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://inovacao.enap.gov.br/images/Documentos/regulamento18.pdf http://inovacao.enap.gov.br/images/Docum... ) and pointed out byNassuno (2007)Nassuno, M. (2007). Inovação na administração pública estadual: O 1o prêmio excelência em gestão pública do Estado de Minas Gerais.Revista Do Serviço Público, 58(1), 77-96. and Vargas (2010)Vargas, E. R. de. (2010). Disseminação de iniciativas inovadoras premiadas no concurso inovação na gestão pública federal (1996-2006).Cadernos Enap, (34), 58-115..
	30.7% local repercussions
	8.0% state-wide repercussions
Sector of origin	Health and education together represent 32.82% of award-winning cases, nearly a third of the total.	The areas of the greatest user interaction are the very ones that produce the largest number of innovations, as found previously in studies on innovation in services (*Djellal et al., 2013Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services?Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.0... ), social innovation (Novy & Leubolt, 2005Novy, A., & Leubolt, B. (2005). Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: Social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2023-2036. doi: 10.1080/00420980500279828 https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098050027982... ) and the co-production of public services (Bovaird, 2007Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846-860. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007... ; Joshi & Moore, 2004*Joshi, A., & Moore, M. (2004). Institutionalised co-production: Unorthodox public service delivery in challenging environments. The Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 31-49. doi: 10.1080/00220380410001673184 https://doi.org/10.1080/0022038041000167... ).
Thematic Area xType	22.3% of awards went to "citizen service". The highest absolute number of awards in this thematic area involved process innovation (30 cases).	The strong showing of innovation in "citizen service" seems indicative of the concern of the public sector with improvement of the delivery of services to citizens, as argued by Salazar and Holbrook (2004)Salazar, M., & Holbrook, A. (2004). A debate on innovation surveys. Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 254-266. doi: 10.3152/147154304781779976 https://doi.org/10.3152/1471543047817799... , a characteristic also found by Borins (2001)Borins, S. (2001). Encouraging innovation in the public sector.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 310-319. doi: 10.1108/14691930110400128 https://doi.org/10.1108/1469193011040012... with respect to the provision of alternative services. This finding is also coherent with the theory of innovation in services which points to co-production or the service relationship as one of the main characteristics of service provision (*Djellal et al., 2013Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services?Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 27, 98-117. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2013.06.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2013.0... ; Gallouj & Weinstein, 1997*Gallouj, F. (1997). Towards a neo-Schumpeterian theory of innovation in services? Science and Public Policy, 24(6), 405-420.).
Thematic Area xType	21.0% of awards were for the "improvement of work processes". In this category, organizational innovation responded for the greater number of awards.

Departamento de Administração da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo Avenida Professor Luciano Gualberto, 908, sala F184, 05508-900 São Paulo / SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 3818-4002 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rausp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Marcos de Moraes Sousa, Mestre em Agronegócio pela Universidade Federal de Goiás, Doutor em Administração pela Universidade de Brasília, é Professor no Instituto Federal Goiano (CEP 76300-000 - Ceres/GO, Brasil). E-mail: marcos.moraes@ifgoiano.edu.br Endereço: Instituto Federal Goiano Rodovia 154, Km 03 Caixa Postal 51 76300-000 - Ceres - GO - Brasil