Part 2: Barriers to Innovation in the Public Sector
We would like to laser focus in the next few paragraphs about 3 key barriers that contribute to stifling innovation efforts in the public sector.
Barrier 1 - The Notion of "Keeping it as previously Known and Practiced"
A common example of this notion is "paper-based form(s)" that are requested to be filled by hand in full or part by applicants to receive a certain service. Some of these forms have been in use for many eras with minimal to no improvement in their presentation and structure. As eras pass, applicants, especially younger populations, expect a change that makes the provision of services smarter and more convenient. For example, making it possible to apply for a service through a smart device or technology, and hence significantly enhancing user experience. Note: we will not dive this time into debates that some agencies may raise, as an excuse to sustain outdated practices - and the risks of their continuity for eras ahead.
Barrier 2 - Inward-Outward Thinking as a Driver for Transformation & Change:
If this continues to be an acceptable norm within bureaucracies today, particularly those that still operate on regulatory standards and guidelines that have been issued to fit many eras prior, then it is a clear message to beneficiaries that the demand of their time comes last in the list of priorities. In addition, when absenteeism in consulting and hearing the voice of beneficiaries with respect to the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of services provided becomes a growingly "business as usual" trait, bureaucracies will be faced with a multiplier effect in opportunities lost, broken bridges of cooperation with service recipients and shattered efforts for real innovation. Should bureaucracies join forces with experienced beneficiaries and stay open to adopting agile and design thinking techniques, they would be able to co-build a better and sustainable service ecosystem.
Barrier 3 - Internal Opposition to Proposals that Calls for Spurring and Investing in Innovation:
This opposition may come under various rejection codes and reasons, for example:
I) Unavailability of budgets to execute the business case for innovation
II) Bureaucracy claiming that being in a position of a fiduciary they are best positioned to know what the bureaucracy wants, and that that equates to the beneficiaries wants
III) Citing innovation is a "nice to have" aspect of service improvement, and as long as beneficiaries are not complaining and are obliged to request and receive the service the way the bureaucracy have designed and decided (i.e. as a result of power imbalance), no pressure exists to look at improving the overall service ecosystem and beneficiary experience.
As we are heading to the last "part 3" of this series, feel free to connect at any time on LinkedIn, or via mail at: innovation@hkdolts.com
#part2, #publicsector, #barrierstoinnovation, #innovation, #barriers, #bureaucratic, #bureaucracy, #bureaucracies, #serviceimprovement, #service, #services, #serviceecosystem, #regulatorystandards, #regulatoryguidelines, #outdatedpractices, #businesscase, #opportunityloss, #transformation, #inwardoutwardthinking, #inwardoutward, #budget, #nicetohave, #sustainableinnovation, #designthinking, #agile, #agiletechniques, #agility, #era, #eras, #cooperation, #ecosystem, #smart, #technology, #digital, #beneficiaries, #experience, #userexperience