Empowering Communities through Innovation in Local Government

Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation Empowering Communities through Innovation in Local Government

Empowering Communities through Innovation in Local Government

Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation | www.cemi.com.au

1


Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation Phone: +618 6488-3981 Fax: +618 6488-1072 Email: [email protected]

General Inquiries: Email: [email protected] Website: www.cemi.com.au

CEMI Discussion Paper Series ISSN 1448-2541

Discussion Paper 1101 © Copyright Tim Mazzarol 2011 Discussion Papers should not be reproduced without attribution to the author(s) as the source of the material. Attribution for this paper should be: Mazzarol, T. (2011) “Empowering Communities through Innovation in Local Government” CEMI Discussion Paper Series, DP 1101, Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation, www.cemi.com.au NOTE: This paper was originally presented at the Local Government Managers Australia, WA Annual State Conference 2011, 2-4 November Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle.


2


EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES THROUGH INNOVATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT Tim Mazzarol, University of Western Australia ([email protected])

ABSTRACT This paper outlines a conceptual framework for how local governments might engage communities to help facilitate innovation. While management within government has shifted over the past two decades towards a more accountable, community focused strategy, achieving innovation remains elusive. Changing community demographics will increase the complexity of managing government agencies and require more innovative approaches. Critical to any innovation program is the existence of champions, who should be encouraged and supported. Local Government Authorities need to recognise the importance of social capital within their communities, and should take steps to facilitate its development. The use of technology to achieve best practice e-government and joined-up-government models is required. Key words: local government, innovation, social capital, e-government.

TRENDS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATION With the end of the Cold War in 1989 the world began to move rapidly into a new era. The world economy began to transform with the opening up of global trade, the rise of the internet and the information and communications technologies (ICT). Within the public sector the past twenty years has seen a major change in how government agencies and authorities are managed. The old paradigm was for a centralised bureaucracy that was a monopolist within its area of service delivery. Its key function was to regulate and control. Today the New Public Management (NPM) approach is characterised by greater levels of accountability and performance measurement. Government authorities must demonstrate "best value" in the use of tax payer or rate payer funds. This has led to the rise of what is termed "managerialism". A somewhat pejorative term used to describe the shift towards this new approach to public sector management. It is now commonly used to describe the way universities are run. What has been driving this change is a constant squeezing of public sector budgets. Writings from the early 1990s onwards refer to rising public sector debt levels, tighter budgets and the need to "achieve more with less". This is a global trend. Evidence can be found in the United Kingdom, the United States, European Union and Australia where this NPM has focused on improvements and innovation in the delivery of services. There has also been a trend towards greater market orientation and commercial business practices. Another key feature of NPM has been a demand for greater community consultation and engagement prior to decision making.

CITIZEN-ORIENTED CULTURE OF PERFORMANCE This need to consult with and respond to the community as a routine part of public policy making has been seen by many as a potential lever for future innovation and enterprise. The ability to respond to the needs of the customer is a well-recognised driver of innovation within the business world.


3


However, for government authorities this process of community engagement can be a major challenge. It can be impeded or made more difficult by political climates in which an issue is contested by a range of different stakeholders. Achieving change is such environments can be fraught with problems as any movement in one direction may satisfy some, but will alienate others. Some authors see the opportunity for government authorities to create what is called a "Citizen-Orientated Culture of Performance". This is characterised by a situation in which the government authority seeks to measure its success against how well it satisfies its citizenry. In this situation 'best value' is measured by how well the government authority responds to the needs of its community and satisfies its requirements for services, infrastructure and amenities. A challenge here can be the ability to provide an appropriate legal basis for this citizen engagement. Achieving public-private partnerships or consulting with the community as part of planning and service development may be desirable. However, care must be taken to ensure that these activities remain transparent without risk of nepotism, favouritism or a lack of democratic fairness and procedural justice.

A CHANGING CITIZENRY POSES NEW CHALLENGES To understand the nature of the challenges facing local government over the next decade we only have to look at the socio-demographic profile of the Australian community. McCrindle Research identifies at least five key generational segments: 1. Builders: Born before 1946 they comprise 14% of the population (approx. 3.02 million people) and about 2% of the workforce. These people have a strong work ethic, are generally conservative and respect authority. They are noted for their reliability and commitment. By 2020 they will all have retired from the workforce. 2. Baby Boomers: Born between 1946 and 1964 the Baby Boomers make up around 24% of the population

(5.28 million) and some 36% of the workforce. They are characterised by a desire for freedom of choice, of individualism and for having an optimistic outlook. They are also socially conscious. By 2020 many will have retired and they will comprise around 15% of the workforce. 3. Generation X: Born between 1965 and 1979 the Gen X comprises 21% of the population (4.64 million) and some 44% of the workforce. They are characterised by being cynical, self-contained and having a desire for career flexibility. They generally don't value experts and prefer to trust friends. By 2020 they will make up around 36% of the workforce. 4. Generation Y: Born between 1980 and 1994 the Gen Y represents around 21% of the population (4.65 million) and 18% of the workforce. They are characterised by their independence and aspirations for success. However, they are sceptical of power and seek freedom in their lifestyle. Born into a world of personal computing they are tech-savvy, but generally avoid commitments. By 2020 they will comprise around 35% of the workforce. 5. Generation Z: Born between 1995 and 2009 the Gen Z make up about 19% of the population (4.22 million) and are mostly still engaged in education. While they are yet to make their mark in the workforce they are noted as being highly tech-focused with a strong use of social media and Web 2.0 technologies. They tend to be impatient and seek instant responses. By 2020 they will comprise around 12% of the workforce.

Each of these groups comprises a different proportion of the workforce and population. By 2020 the Builders and most of the Baby Boomers will have retired. However, they will still expect to be given access to high quality aged care, health, recreational and sporting facilities. They will still own significant levels of property Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation | www.cemi.com.au

4


within the community and may not be comfortable with planning and development initiatives that threaten their lifestyle. By contrast the Generation X and Y will be seeking to gain access to home ownership and quality education, sporting and recreation facilities. They are noted for their cynicism towards authority, particularly governments and a tendency to prefer personal networks over official organized associations. Reaching Generations X and Y, plus the newly emerging Generation Z, will demand a greater use of web-based platforms. These generations are less likely to read the newspapers and watch the main stream television media. They are more easily contacted via Facebook than the telephone directory. Each generation is likely to pose a range of competing and sometimes conflicting range of pressures on local government authorities with impacts on planning, housing and services over coming years.

RESEARCH FINDINGS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT INNOVATION The conceptual framework shown here was developed from research undertaken within the Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation (CEMI) during the period 2005 to 2009. It involved a review of the existing academic literature relating to innovation in government agencies including the work of David Osborne and Ted Gaebler (1993), Sanford Borins (2001), Jean Hartley (2005; 2006), and Bartlett and Dibben (2002; 2010). During this review (McFarlane 2007), contact was made with Sanford Borins and Jean Hartley in relation to their perspective of how innovation in government sector management should be considered. Finally, during the period 2005 to 2009, CEMI via UWA ran a series of workshops for the WA Public Sector in innovation and entrepreneurship. Over 200 managers were engaged in these interactive workshops and data was gathered in relation to how their respective agencies were dealing with innovation management.

This work has had an influence on some agencies such as Main Roads WA who have commenced the implementation of innovation management programs. The findings were also presented earlier this year via the Institute of Public Administration Australia in Perth.

SIX PRINCIPLES FOR REINVENTING GOVERNMENT In 1993 Osborne and Gaebler published their book entitled “Reinventing Government”. The book outlined the findings from a major study of local government authorities across the United States who were identified as having launched major programs designed to reform the public sector. In an overview paper on the study Osborne (1993) identified six principles for reinventing the way government authorities operate. The first he called “catalytic government‟, which was defined as government that chose to „steer not row‟, and taking a proactive approach to leading change via facilitation. Rather than building massive centralized bureaucracies, it sought to outsource and devolve service delivery. A second approach was „competitive government‟ that adopted commercial business models and management techniques to offer services that could compete with the private sector. This was accompanied by a third „mission-driven government‟ that freed up managers to work on achieving well-defined mission and goals, and with flexibility in how money was allocated within budgets.


5


A fourth principle was ‘results-oriented government’, where managers were measured by how well they achieved objective and measurable key performance indicators (KPI), and where they were encouraged to exceed these targets. A fifth approach was ‘customer-driven government’ defined by a focus on the client or end-user, and supported by a trend towards given the funding to the consumer and letting them choose how to spend it. Finally, there was ‘enterprising government’ where public sector managers were rewarded for their ability to generate income from commercial activities not just to spend money. Each of these interrelated “principles” is now mainstream within the management of public sector authorities.

EFFECTIVE INNOVATION MUST LEAD TO IMPROVEMENT A challenge for public sector managers is how to implement innovation and achieve useful performance improvements as a result. Hartley (2005) suggests that for innovation to be effective it must result in both something that is new and something that enhances performance or helps to lower costs. Managers are generally good at continuous improvement practices. I recall being asked by a CEO of a major WA Government Agency what the difference was between innovation and continuous improvement. I explained that the latter was focused on reducing error rates between the actual and desired levels of performance as measured by benchmarks. Yet innovation is about shifting these benchmarks and looking for new ways to change the status quo rather than just managing it. True innovation requires a willingness to change the existing system and move into new and often unknown territory. By its nature it is risky and uncertain. However, well managed innovation programs can achieve both new ways of working and ones that are genuine improvements on the existing systems. It should be noted that innovation is not only about technology. Some of the most important innovations have been associated with marketing, administrative and management systems. They are business process innovations rather than technological product innovations.

FIVE KEY BUILDING BLOCKS OF INNOVATION According to Borins (2001) there are five key building blocks of innovation within government authorities. Working in conjunction with Price Waterhouse Coopers, Borins collected data from 404 government agencies across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and other countries.

The first building block was the use of a ‘systems approach’ to innovation management. This involves the use of systematic analysis of problems and the coordination of a cross-functional array of organizational units to achieve outcomes. It can also involve the provision of a range of services to clients that have been assembled via a process known as JUG or “Joined-Up-Government”. This refers to integrated frontline service delivery and requires the use of information and communications technologies (ICT), which are the second building block. ICT offer government authorities the ability to draw together otherwise disparate databases and use this information to enhance decision making. Data collection, capture, storage, retrieval, analysis and dissemination remain a challenge for many government authorities. Yet the systems exist and their cost is rapidly coming down as the level of data platforms expands almost exponentially via increased use of mobile, two-way intelligent devices. Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation | www.cemi.com.au

6


A third building block is process improvement, which reflects the need for the continuous monitoring of how innovation programs are performing against desired benchmarks. Ideally these programs should involve an examination of the 80/20 Pareto Principle to identify the 20% of projects that require 80% of the authority’s attention so as to free up resources and allocate them to where they are most required. The fourth building block is the need for government to open up to the private and non-profit sector in the delivery of services, and inject greater competition into service delivery. Such partnerships offer a means of multiplying government resources. Finally, there is a need to empower local communities and employees to engage them in the design of new programs.

COMMUNITY-ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT This leads to the model of community-engagement for innovation in local government (See Figure 1). The framework looks at the issue of how local government might approach innovation and community engagement from three primary perspectives. Each of these in turn has a two or three key units of analysis that need to be considered.

Figure 1: Community-Engagement Framework for Innovation in Local Government

The first primary level is that of the management perspective. Here there are two units of analysis that deal with two types of ‘champion’ as found within studies of innovation in local government management.


7


The second primary level is that of the agency or government authority perspective. This contains three areas of consideration: i) ii) iii)

Are there innovation sponsors? What is the design of the systems architecture? and Will innovation be impeded by path dependencies?

The third primary level is that of the community perspective. Here the three key challenges facing local government authorities are: i) ii) iii)

how to build community cooperation; how facilitate the formation of social capital within the community; and how best to engage the community in the innovation process.

MANAGEMENT LEVEL - 2 TYPES OF CHAMPION In a study of a dozen local government authorities in the UK, Bartlett and Dibben (2002) identified two broad types of manager involved in innovation. These were defined as the “Public Champion” and the “Empowered Champion”.

The first was characterized by a motivation to deliver superior services or outcomes to their clients. As such they were highly client focused and responsive to community feedback over needs and wants. They provide a case example of a female manager in a LGA who championed the creation of a new service for disable people. She identified this from taking feedback from the community, and managed the project’s implementation through the Council’s existing decision making procedures. It was a classic example of a market-led innovation. By comparison the “empowered champions” were motivated by more personal issues that usually involved a strong desire to achieve change and ‘make a mark’. Two cases can be shown; the first was a manager who launched a new neighbourhood care scheme. According to this manager: “Rather than being if you like a control freak I’m more of a change freak. I can see that we need to change, always need to improve, so I’m almost not satisfied unless I’m … doing something that requires change” (Bartlett and Dibben 2002 p.113). The second case was that of a new recycling program. According to this manager: “I came in with all guns blazing saying ‘if you’re not going to do this, I will …’ It was really their trying to keep me at bay that forced them to go with it, because they had no other option … But it also ruffled fur. I was still in my first six months of being there, and taking hold of something that they dearly wanted to happen and make it happen” (Bartlett and Dibben 2002 p. 113). This research suggests that both types of champion can be effective, but both are motivated by different factors. Both types of champion are important to the achievement of innovation within government authorities. However, it is important to note that they can be negatively impacted by the culture and organizational climate of the LGA in which they are working.

The empowered champion needs an environment that is open to new ideas and willing to embrace innovation and the passion that this type of individual has for change and improvement. Such managers can be difficult to work with and need to be given clear goals and boundaries so as to ensure that the system is protected. Yet they should also not be stifled in their ambitions. Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation | www.cemi.com.au

8


Good performance management systems can be built into their innovation programs to enable the organization to monitor the success or failure of any projects. It is also important that the organisation has a culture that is tolerant of failure and risk taking. The public champion needs an environment and culture that is client focused and willing to encourage community engagement and input. A lack of support for their initiatives by senior managers can have a negative impact on these managers as they lack the same inner drive of the empowered champion.

AGENCY LEVEL - 3 CONSIDERATIONS At the agency level the three main considerations are the existence of innovation sponsors, the design of the systems architecture and the presence of dysfunctional path dependencies. The first of these is most important. It is often said that “the fish rots from the head” and it is also true of innovation within organisations. Senior management must support innovation by making clear and formal statements that innovation is a key strategic goal of the organization and defining what is meant by innovation. They also need to ensure that any internal politics or resistance to change is addressed so as to stop it from impeding innovation. As noted this can have a particularly detrimental effect on public champions. The design of the systems architecture within the organisation should seek to embrace the concept of „joined-up-government‟ so as to provide integrated „one-stop‟ solutions to end user needs. This may require the development of multi-functional or cross-functional project teams, and the use of ICT for data management and dissemination. Finally, attention should be given to identifying any path dependencies, which are where the organisation‟s past history or experience locks it into a pattern of continuing to follow the same behaviours that got it into the problems it is now seeking to overcome. The concept of path dependency is well recognised in the strategy literature and can lead to organisations failing to adapt to change and missing strategic opportunities or failing to foresee threats. Managers are generally good at employing routine systems to solve routine problems. This requires „convergent‟ thinking. However, innovation requires a more creative, open minded and „divergent‟ thinking approach. Developing „divergent‟ thinking skills is a new tool for many managers that must be learnt.

KEY ADVICE TO PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGERS According to Borins (2001) the public sector manager must build innovation with the support of senior management. There should be reward and recognition structures in place within their organisation that are aligned with the achievement of innovation outcomes. It is also important to provide adequate resources for innovation projects that may be in the form of money, people, facilities and time. Conventional budget processes tend to lock up funding and make it less flexible for the financing of innovation projects. Due to their lack of clear process and high levels of uncertainty, innovation projects need more flexible funding and it may be useful to put aside special funding pools for such initiatives. There must also be a tolerance of diversity and divergent thinking within the organisation. New ideas that challenge the status quo should be explored and evaluated rather than rejected out of hand. Of course they should be assessed objectively and against good facts based data. It is also valuable for public sector managers to go outside their organisations and look at what is happening in other authorities at the local, state and national level, as well as overseas. I note


9


that there is now a regular exchange between State Government Agency Heads to discuss innovation and share ideas. These initiatives need to be pushed down to all levels of the bureaucracy. The innovation process also must seek input from the rank and file within the organisation. In particular staff who regularly contact with the community or community infrastructure and facilities. They are often best placed to see problems and suggest new ideas for improvements. Finally, there must be a willingness to experiment and take calculated risks, while also engaging in meaningful self-analysis even of failures where most lessons are found.

COMMUNITY LEVEL - 3 CHALLENGES We can now turn to the three challenges that face local government in seeking to engage within its communities. Here the first issue is whether the community has the ability to engage in cooperative behaviour. For a community to undertake significant cooperative activity it must have the resources (such as time, money, skills and capabilities) to meaningfully engage with either the local government or other community members. Further, it also must be motivated to do so and able to be mobilized into action. This often requires the community sharing a common purpose or having common goals. Without these attributes community mobilization and engagement can be difficult to achieve.

The community’s ability to cooperate is dependent on the level of social capital that is found within the society. Social capital is a poorly understood and defined concept, but can be seen as a measure of the level of trust, reciprocity and networks that exist between people. Local government cannot directly build social capital but they can help to facilitate its formation. A third challenge for local government is how to actually engage the community once the first two issues are addressed. This is likely to lead to the consideration of e-government and joined-up-government models.

CHALLENGE 1 - BUILDING COMMUNITY COOPERATION In meeting the first of these three community challenges local government should consider the existence of what is called a ‘participation chain’. This defines the level of resources, motivation and mobilisation capacity that exists within the community. It is possible for local government to facilitate community cooperation building by providing resources and support to those community members who may lack the resources required. They might also facilitate mobilisation by providing forums for communication and networking. Traditionally this has taken place via LGA support for local business, sporting and cultural associations, or via the building of common user infrastructure. This type of support should continue, but may need to be supplemented via use of social media to capture the likes of Generations X, Y and Z. It is important to note that the role of local government in this process is that of an indirect facilitator. Too much direct involvement or dominance by government is counterproductive.

CHALLENGE 2 - BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL As noted, a key element in the building of social capital is trust. This involves at least three fundamental elements. First the LGA and the community must recognise and respect each other’s ability or competence.


10


Government services must be efficient and well managed. The community must also play its role. Second, the two parties must have integrity. If they give commitments to do something they must be good for their word. Finally, the two parties must be engaged for reasons that are not purely selfish, there should be an element of benevolence in the relationship. Networks are also very important to social capital. Local government managers and the community need to possess good linkages with other members of the community. These ties may not be strong, but without them there can be little effective understanding of the way different members of the community see the world and this can erode trust. Social capital also requires attention to reciprocal rewards and punishments. These can be direct in which I give and I get back either rewards or retribution. They can also be indirect, where I give but don’t expect to get a return immediately. I may benefit by seeing others gain but their benefits may come eventually back to me over time. Finally, recognition must be given to the issue of spatial reciprocity. Here the community member who is a local is likely to behave differently to those who are transient. A person who feels unattached to the community and likely to move on to a new location is less easily engaged and more likely to free ride or see little point in contributing.

CHALLENGE 3 - UNLEASHING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT To unleash community engagement requires a range of strategies that depend on the nature of each municipality. Those with existing high levels of social capital and community capacity for cooperation will find it potentially easier to engage than those without such benefits. The OECD in a report on innovation published in 2010 called upon government agencies to become ‘innovation actors’, particularly in how they deliver their services. The use of ICT to deliver e-government programs was seen as important. Citizen participation in e-government is a crucial element, but one that is often overlooked. A UN Study of egovernment around the world found that that there is a growing trend towards the use of online technologies to engage community participation in government decision making. This is making greater use of online surveys, opinion sites and forums using Web 2.0 social media. Australia ranks very well in this regard (UN 2010). However, it is also creating a growing digital divide between those community members who are websavvy and those who do not have such access. Citizen participation in e-government requires careful design of web-based platforms and the tailoring of such sites to individual end-user needs. They can be used to co-design and co-create new services. In the allocation of budget expenditure, community engagement via such technologies may help to shape where money is spent. Community engagement via online social media forums, wikis, blogs and social bookmarking can help local government managers track opinions and engage in ideas generation through ‘open innovation’ and ‘crowd sourcing’ activities. These strategies have already been widely used within commercial environments for the design and development of new technologies.


11


E-GOVERNANCE TRANSITION MODEL The development of e-government strategies requires much more than an attractive website. Local government authorities must build their e-government business model around a well-considered whole of government strategy. Research undertaken by Melitski (2003) in the United States with state government agencies who had been early adopters of e-government initiatives identified a tension between what was described as a technologycentric “IT-Paradigm” and a citizen-centric “PA-Paradigm”. The latter refers to Public Administration. The IT-Paradigm was driven by IT Managers who were primarily concerned with systems integrity and a desire to isolate the system from too much interference from the outside. Their concerns were over hacking, corruption and security of data, virus infections and incompatible software integration. By comparison the PAParadigm was driven by managers who were more concerned with the way the ICT systems configured to be effective and useful to their community clients. Commencing with a static one-way website the e-governance transition model moves to being more two-way and interactive, then transactional and finally transformational in nature. The last stage sees a genuine twoway and often three-way engagement between the government agency and its community. Most transactions are online. Such technology will require the community to give data to the local government authority and potentially share this with other community members. Trust and the management of this type of data will become critical issues in the future.

KEY CHALLENGES FOR INNOVATION IN PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT The workshops undertaken by CEMI with the WA Public Sector over a period of about five years helped us to identify a series of interconnected factors that comprise a set of key challenges to innovation within government agencies. Let me quickly summarize these. Government authorities must possess a clear strategic level vision for what innovation is and then set KPIs that can be used to guide managers into the future. They must also ensure that they provide access to resources to help innovation projects emerge and develop. This may involve special funds, or simply a willingness to allocate time and existing resources to the seeding of new initiatives. Managers must be empowered through the formation of networks that allow them to share ideas with others across different municipalities, agencies and jurisdictions. This should involve the identification of best practice benchmarks and ideas leaders. Innovation champions should also be identified who can lead change. These can be either ‘public’ or ‘empowered’ champions, but they need mentoring and support from senior levels. To help discipline the innovation management process, well defined KPIs need to be put in place that are linked to budget outcomes. These champions should also be active in boundary spanning, to monitor how their projects are likely to be received by others and ensure that they do not miss opportunities or fail to see emerging threats. We suggest that a series of demonstration projects be developed within government authorities that wish to get started on this innovation journey. They should be show cased to help other managers see the opportunities. Managers also need to be equipped with tools, techniques and skills in innovation management, which can be taught. Finally, there needs to be consideration of the implementation of innovation management training.


12


CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS It is important that local government authorities embrace innovation and enterprise as a strategic priority. It should not be viewed as something that is done on rare occasions or when the organisation is facing threats. Innovation must become a core part of the local government manager’s role and the focus should be on challenging the status quo in order to achieve superior outcomes in service delivery or administrative process. Managers can be either public or empowered but both need to be encouraged. The public champion who responds to community needs should work alongside the empowered champion who is constantly seeking news ways to improve the system. Local governments must look internally to ensure that they have senior level sponsors of innovation, and systematic innovation management processes. Policies, procedures, politics and cultural obstacles that lock managers into ‘convergent’ thinking to the exclusion of ‘divergent’ thinking must be overcome. Externally, local governments must look to their communities and help facilitate the building of capacity to allow cooperation and the creation of social capital. They must build upon a foundation of trust, reciprocity and good networking. With these foundations they can seek to make use of e-government and joined-upgovernment strategies capable of engaging all age groups and all stakeholders.

REFERENCES Bartlett, D., and Dibben, P. (2002). "Public Sector Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Case Studies from Local Government." Local Government Studies, 28(4): 107-121. Borins, S. (2001). The Challenge of Innovating in Government. Toronto, The Price Waterhouse Coopers Endowment for The Business of Government. Dibben, P., and Bartlett, D. (2010). "Local Government and Service Users: Empowerment through User-Led Innovation?" Local Government Studies, 27(3): 43-58. Hartley, J. (2005). "Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present." Public Money & Management, 25(1): 27-34. Hartley, J. (2006). Innovation and its Contribution to Improvement: A Review for Policy-Makers, Policy Advisers, Managers and Researchers. London, Department for Communities and Local Government. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J.H., and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). "An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust." Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734. Mazzarol, T., and McFarlane, R. (2010) Challenges for WA Public Sector Innovation, presentation to IPAA (WA), Perth. McFarlane, R. J. (2007). WA Public Sector Innovation: Issues & Opportunities. CEMI Discussion Paper 0701, Perth, Centre for Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation, ISSN 1448-2541. Melitski, J. (2003) “Capacity and e-governance: An analysis based on early adopters of internet technologies”, Public Performance & Management Review, 26(4): 376-390. Osborne, D. (1993). "Reinventing Government." Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(4): 349-356.


13


Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York, Plume. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). "Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management." Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533. UN (2010) United Nations E-Government Survey 2010, UN Public Administration Program.


14