Business report

Opportunities and challenges of collaborating with local innovators to prototype future digital public services in Kent County Council

Author: Vu NGUYEN MBA module CB951 Kent Business School University of Kent

24/08/2010

Purpose Kent County Council Technology & Transformation Team: Proposals for Student Projects. Project 2: To identify the opportunities and challenges of collaborating with local innovators to prototype future digital public services. We need to involve more effectively local innovators in the co-creation of innovative concepts to improve community outcomes. We want to build a better capacity for the council to unlock local talent to build a digital economy. Thats why we would like research into the opportunities and challenges of involving innovators in helping prototype future digital public services and supporting the development of these prototypes within these services and/or the community. This will include identifying the situations and issues that could act as drivers or barriers to the introduction of these processes. Finally, we would like to create a strategic route map for the development of open innovation.

Kent County Council Technology & Transformation Team

Summary This report is written to respond to the request mentioned above in collaboration with the Kent County Council for the MBA business report.

CONTENTS Purpose...........................................................................................................................2 Summary.........................................................................................................................2 Introduction.....................................................................................................................4 Context, material and method.........................................................................................4 Concept of innovation.....................................................................................................5 Definition.............................................................................................................5 Type, process and level......................................................................................5 Motivation and need to innovate.....................................................................................6 Evolution of innovation in UK public sector.........................................................6 Main trends in public sector innovation...............................................................7 Managing innovation in the current climate situation .........................................8 Drivers and barriers to innovation in the public sector...................................................8 Key building blocks and tools to foster innovation..............................................8 Enablers to innovation........................................................................................8 Barriers to innovation........................................................................................11 Methods and techniques for a participatory approach.................................................13 Collaboration to innovate with Kent County Council....................................................14 Benefits and opportunities for KCC..................................................................14 Benefits and opportunities for local innovators................................................14 Challenges and issues.....................................................................................15 Capacity and process to attract local innovators.........................................................17 Innovation culture within KCC..........................................................................17 Difficulties and issues to get involved more effectively...................................19 Strength, weak, opportunity and threat to engage in innovation.....................20 Proposal of a model of communication plan................................................................21 Resources and supports..................................................................................21 Working practices.............................................................................................21 Collaborators....................................................................................................21 Value creation..................................................................................................22 A strategic approach to manage collaboration............................................................23 Clarification of the purpose..............................................................................23 Stakeholder Analysis.......................................................................................24 Selection of the appropriate involvement technique........................................25 Implementation of the involvement technique..................................................27 Evaluation, improvement and adjustment........................................................27 Recommendation ........................................................................................................27 Conclusion...................................................................................................................28 Appendix......................................................................................................................29 Glossary.......................................................................................................................30 References...................................................................................................................31

INTRODUCTION Kent County Council (KCC) has drawn up a strategy for innovating new services and concepts based on the use of technology. This ambition also includes the research on new ways of collaborating with innovators and social entrepreneurs to participate in the cocreation of innovative concepts, prototyping of new services and development of open innovation. In doing so the Council wants to involve stakeholders coming from different sectors and contributing to tackle local challenges. This report is being written because KCC needs to unlock local talent and get them involved more effectively to build a digital economy. The purpose of this report is firstly to identify opportunities and challenges of collaborating with such local innovators to prototype future digital public services. Then a proposal for overcoming the mentioned issues and challenges which will be drawn up through a strategic approach to promote and manage collaboration. This proposal will be also used for drawing up a strategic route map to develop open innovation. The report contains information related to innovation in public service and the connection with external stakeholders in terms of involvement. Although this report includes some aspects of the management of innovation and its issues within KCC, it does not go in detail on how KCC should improve its innovation culture, neither how KCC should transform its organization and structure for that purpose. This report focuses on the relationship between KCC and external stakeholders. The problem is being approached from a practical standpoint. Reviews of factors which drive and impede innovation happen in the public sector will be conducted at the first stage. From there the research outcome will be used for drawing up a framework to carry out an investigation. It aims at researching on both the current situation within KCC in terms of innovation culture and the relationship with local innovators.

1. Context, material and method

KCC Technology and Transformation team (KCC3T) is in charge of the identification of technologies that can improve KCC business and the delivery of its strategic priorities. It reviews, tests and demonstrates their practical applications while mainstreaming innovation throughout KCC. This report is written with the support from the members of this team who provide access to information for conducting researches and interviews. Information and data come from KCCs sources but also academic literature, government and independent organisations reports. The areas of information include: Innovative concepts and projects developed by KCC3T Organisation of KCC Innovation in the public sector General frameworks and tools for innovating successfully in the public sector General framework for stakeholders analysis and involvement technique

An example of innovative concept is the TransformedByYou event in which participants generate ideas to solve local issues and challenges in a day. The concept is an open and participatory workshop-event, the challenges having been selected by a vote prior to the event day. The next stage of the implementation of this concept is called Innovation playground. It is the same principle as TransformedByYou but operates in a virtual space with the capacity to develop prototypes in addition.

Another example is the concept of Open Kent, a concept of re-using publicly available data; which can be picked, shared and mixed. It aims at delivering new public services. This concept is represented through the pilot project Open Kent. A series of interviews was also conducted through a set of twenty-six questions designed for KCC members and external stakeholders. Each interview took one hour. Interviewees were local innovators or stakeholders who have worked for KCC, it was also addressed to individuals potentially involved in KCCs projects or for future collaboration. There were also other stakeholders having feeding back on collaboration with KCC. These interviewees were selected by KCC3T. The list of interviewees and the questions are in the appendix section.

2. Methods and techniques for a participatory approach

In order to support the analysis of issues regarding the involvement of local innovators in the prototyping of future digital public service, and their contribution to develop innovative concepts initiated by KCC, there is a need to understand the concept of participation and how to build a capacity to get it effective. A participatory approach is a practice that consists of creating a favourable condition for stakeholders to collaborate and to make the interdependence between the technical aspect and human, social, and organizational elements of work systems possible. The benefits of such an approach enable local innovators to contribute their expertise and knowledge. The participatory approach also gives an opportunity for learning and skill sharing that benefits both the public organization and stakeholders. It is also recognized that direct engagement with potential users and stakeholders provides an invaluable knowledge base about their needs and characteristics. In doing so, promoting and encouraging them at key stages in the design or prototyping of future digital public service should take into consideration their diverse objectives and aspirations, and define the strategy to attract them efficiently. Obviously this participatory approach can apply to any end users or other stakeholders related to the projects in which they would be involved. However, the management of this participatory approach is complex and uncertain, which requires significant skills in communication and consultation, especially for those who are in charge of designing innovative concepts or prototypes. As a result there is a need to build a capacity for effective participation and engagement. Such requirement includes knowledge of initiating, facilitating and managing participation. There is also some basic and good practice in communication techniques that could bring a far more favourable outcome. Yet it is not just those who are in charge to implement and manage participation who form this capacity. Capacity building also refers to a definite opportunity for stakeholders to collaborate, their confidence in public organization and their competence related to the activity they are supposed to contribute. Obviously this capacity building can be applied in the context with end users or other stakeholders. The list below resumes what resources and tasks are required to build an effective participatory approach: Skills in communications and consulting to manage participation Enable stakeholders to learn how to make contribution by using their knowledge, creativity and experience Give an opportunity for learning and skill sharing Understand stakeholders needs and characteristics Consideration of stakeholders objectives and aspirations Address clearly opportunities for stakeholder to collaborate 5

Ensure that participants have a role in the decision making Trust and confidence

3. Collaboration to innovate with Kent County Council

This section analyses the findings from the research on how local innovators can contribute to future digital public services. It also shows the results from the research on how local innovators benefit from working on innovative concepts and projects developed through KCCs R&D and what challenges this collaboration process faces. The research is based on a set of interviews with innovators who have or havent worked with KCC. The design of these interviews and questionnaire are detailed in the appendix. The intention of innovative concept such as TransformedByYou or Pic&Mix project is to work on future digital public services in collaboration with external stakeholders. Innovators are already identified. With the willingness to create, change and share their ideas, those stakeholders are essential to build the innovation process. But there is a need to understand their knowledge, skills and experience in working with the public sector in order to identify potential contributions to achieve KCCs objectives. The result of this is reported in the table Table1. 3.1. Benefits and opportunities for KCC The list below describes the contributions that local innovators can potentially provide: Provide Expertise A. External expertise in innovative products or services specifically designed for the public sector and social benefits based on web technology B. Technical expertise in the usage of web Technology for social benefits (web 2.0, widgets, digital social networks) C. Expertise in promotion, communication, branding and identity D. Experience in supporting local communities by engaging their creative expertise in cultural and arts regeneration, social and business enterprise E. Advice of practical ways to use a mix of different communication methods, online and face-to-face in order to help local innovators and KCC to collaborate better. Advice on the use of social technology for social impact Distribute KCC ideas/plans F. Social networking activities to spread out KCCs innovative concepts Other Benefits G. Provide the framework, research and test findings from Reboot Britain program and connect to reliable and viable new innovators H. Develop and evaluate the Pic &Mix pilot. Development of projects from the TBYou challenges with smart phone applications The potential contributions that local innovators can provide are shown in the Table1 and Figure1 with their respective knowledge, skill and experience. 3.2. Benefits and opportunities for local innovators These contributions can help KCC build its capacity to innovate and generate new services based on the digital community. In return the digital community should be able to see benefits from collaborating with KCC otherwise it would not have any motivation and

incentive to maintain such a relationship. The list below describes some benefits in question from working on innovative concepts developed through R&D: Financial Benefits A. Financial income B. Reducing and sharing cost and risk C. A space for sponsorship and promoting their organization D. Gain in legitimacy to access to resource and funding Partnership/ Networking Benefits E. Extend the network of partners in the public sector and access to wider audience F. New social networking and channels of communication G. Knowledge transfer and a space for R&D collaboration H. Develop new partnership working models. Reinforce relationship in terms of working between private sector and local authorities. I. The opportunity to discuss and share ideas with other internal KCC members. In addition the creation of new forum enabling dialogue between external stakeholders and internal members Promote New Creative Ideas J. Take ownership of innovative ideas and develop it within their organization. K. Creativity L. KCC is in advanced in term of engagement in innovation culture compared with other counties ( NESTA ) M. Take advantage of the environment to build innovative applications and websites N. Support to prototype end-user innovation for wider scale development O. Support collaborative development of ideas and communication between innovation participants (KCC 3T as a hub for local innovators) Encourage Community Engagement P. Enable participants to track the status of ideas submitted and facilitate communications between submitter and evaluator (external or internal) Q. Personal benefit including good mind, keep going with government changes, engaging in citizenship Other Benefits R. Reputation S. Enrichment from developing new activities with the Public sector 3.3. Challenges and issues The interview outcome also brings to light criticism and worries with regards to the collaboration process with KCC and the general perception of the public sector by some local innovators. The list below shows feedbacks from them . Communication issues 1. Lack of communication between KCC3T and local innovators in terms of their vision and intentions 2. Insufficient involvement at the earliest stage of the design of concepts and projects (TBYou for example) 3. Ownership agreement not clearly defined 4. Language with local innovators is not appropriate for example stakeholder, influencing 5. Importance of personal relationships, openness and dialogue 7

6. Needs and objectives not communicated enough 7. Project initiators are not proficient in communication, suggestion to have internal work with initiator and external stakeholder before engaging in any events or work 8. Requirement of relevant KCC staff to discuss with local innovators Commitment & Preparation Issues 9. Reluctance to involve in the stage after the development of the concept e.g. implementation stage 10. Not enough enthusiasm to collaborate with KCC 11. Not enough preparation work to select and assess audience group in the Pic&Mix prototyping stage 12. A preparation of networking to build confidence and trust in people before engaging in any development process or event 13. Necessity of preparing business model and cash flow Financial Issues 14. Waste of money with previous projects implemented by KCC Bureaucracy Issues 15. Strong hierarchical structures and organization 16. Need to unlock rigidity of internal staff 17. Unfairness of achieving a project and not having support from internal staff 18. Need contractual terms in involvement in the pilot stage Other Issues 19. Worries about not having enough influence and contribution to the decision making process in working with KCC3T 20. Issue with commissioning and procurement process 21. Willing to engage in piloting and prototyping but there is no formal relationship 22. Innovation concepts and project should demonstrate a clear public and social value 23. Perception of laziness in the public sector 24. Event TBYou should have different stages: everything in one day was not appropriate 25. Necessity of valuing and measuring prototype project in term of risks (appropriate funding, outcomes and share benefit) 26. Transparency is needed

Figure1

4. Capacity and process to attract local innovators

8

4.1. Innovation culture within KCC For the purpose of this research on how to get local innovators involved more effectively with KCC, an understanding of how internal KCC members perceive innovation is necessary. This is done by setting interviews and questionnaires which are detailed in the appendix. According to the framework and tools mentioned above relating to drivers and barriers to innovation, the following result is used for setting a map of criterions to assess the capacity and process to attract local innovators. This result tells us the reasons that impede innovation to flourish and barriers to implement it. In addition this outcome shows some positive aspects in the consideration of innovation by KCC members and external stakeholders. The tables Table2 and Table3 below are a synthesis of perception extracted from KCC members interviews.

Table2
Enablers to innovate General perception Comment

Top management must drive and support an innovative culture Individual/team rewards and incentives must be promoted and increased Resources and funds are well appropriate and sufficient Diversity of staff Learn from external environment Innovation is everyones responsibility Scope for experimentation Evaluation Accurate views of all relevant stakeholders( to detect resistance) Ensuring that full range of skill is available Involvement of end users at all stage Innovation champion

Medium

Support is verbal, no innovation culture and no leadership Existing rewards events

Strong

Poor Strong Medium Poor Poor Strong Medium

Huge waste for many programmes, impacted by the spending cut

Some teams do it but complain to not have enough time allocated

Some teams do it but complain to not have enough time allocated

Generally middle line management are resistant Communication and management skills are not always present where it is required Not always a priority

Medium

Medium Poor

Table3
Barriers to innovate KCC internal members general perception Comment

Bureaucracy Political environment: Inappropriate funding and resource External environment Public not confident in the usefulness and effectiveness of the programme

Strong Strong

extremely hierarchical and rigid structural organization Difficulty in the current climate but innovation is necessary.

Medium

Difficulty to set up a target group for the programme Poor incentive and reward to innovate Short term budgeting and planning horizon Culture of risk aversion Poor skill in risk and change management Reluctance to close down failing programme or organization Cultural and organizational arrangement resist to the integration of technology Delivery pressure and administrative afflictions

Medium

Insignificant

Existing policies to reward and incentive but need to improve its promotion. Difficulty in the current climate but innovation is a necessary. General perception in the public sector Lack of leadership Some programmes were not useful and costly Middle management & Internal end-users are more often reluctant Not enough time

Strong

Strong Strong Medium

Medium

Strong

4.2. Difficulties and issues to get involved more effectively According to the previous results from interviews and research, the internal issues impact the collaboration process with external stakeholders and end users. There is evidence that difficulties to involve more effectively local innovators come from: - The management of participatory approach - The lack of structured and formalized proposal to involve - The public sector reputation - The lack of trust in working with KCC Participatory approaches are not sufficiently managed because project initiators or design group dont have an effective strategy to show, attract and convince local innovators to participate. The objective and intention are not clearly demonstrated, these issues are related to the fact that information is not readily available and understandable. However this lack of skill in consulting and communication is not a result from their capacity because they are not in charge to take responsibility for that. It seems that there is no support for these particular tasks. In addition, some local innovators dont know how to contribute and where they are going, although they are keen to engage to work with KCC by making their knowledge available, creativity and experience. As a result there are worries about the degree of their involvement and ownership issues. These could be conveyed by their participation in decision making or design and conception stage. 10

Opportunity for learning and skill sharing might not be sufficiently highlighted; therefore local innovators dont have enough interest and enthusiasm to engage in working with KCC. Indeed apart from the financial aspect, transfer knowledge and access to wider audience are also sources of motivation for local innovators. Some external stakeholders gave the feeling that there is no creation of value for them to collaborate with KCC. A participatory approach necessitates understanding and taking into consideration of local innovators characteristics, needs aspirations and objectives. It appears that this part is not well perceived by local innovators in the sense that some of them have insisted on the importance of personal relationship, openness and dialogue. Finally, a participatory approach requires a confident and trustworthy atmosphere to facilitate involvement, the reputation of KCC as a rigid and strong hierarchical organization hinders the development of such collaboration with external stakeholders, and specifically with local innovators who use to work and act freely. Their perception of waste in public service contrasts with what they claim as producing more efficiently with less, might deteriorate their confidence in collaborating in a public sector environment. The lack of formal and structured proposal doesnt convince local innovators efficiently to engage in the process of involvement. Therefore there is not enough motivation to attract them to work with KCC in such a context. Whatever the level of involvement in which local innovator is appointed, a structured proposal would enable participants to understand the objectives, their contributions and their benefits. In doing so local innovators are insured to work in a partnership context of which most of them have requested. The findings from the investigation within KCC (interviews, internal documents, reports) and research (academic, public and independent organizations publications) enable to draw up a map of strengths, weaknesses, opportunity and threat factors in the process of better involving local innovators in collaborating with KCC. 4.3. Strength, weak, opportunity and threat to engage in innovation There is the capacity to attract local innovators in the sense that KCC does promote innovation. It takes initiative to research on new ways of involving people to build a digital community to serve the public. It has also appropriate resources. However innovation culture is not effective within KCC and processes for collaborating with external stakeholders, are not well structured neither fully formal. Identifications of positive and negative aspects impacting the process of collaboration with local innovators are listed as below: Strength - Kent is advanced in terms of initiative for promoting innovation compared with other regions - Innovative approach in designing a strategy to future digital public services with the participation of local innovators - Innovate08 winner - Development of innovative concept based on the Barcamp such TransformedByYou - Policies to support and promote new ideas into viable solution Weakness - Lack of business process in managing collaboration and participatory approach - Reputation of strong hierarchical organization and risk aversion attitude - Lack of leadership to instil innovation culture Opportunity 11

Potential and wide range of competences from local innovators to sustain the Pic&Mix project and future digital public services - Build up digital community with local innovators - Development of a place for open innovation Threats Lack of resources and funding due to the current political and economic climate Insufficient support from public to maintain and sustain innovative programmes such as Pic&Mix

5. Proposal of a model of communication plan

The purpose of this second part is to propose a solution to overcoming the barriers and weakness issues mentioned previously. It aims at defining a strategic approach which encompasses both the promotion of the KCCs concepts and collaboration of local innovators. KCC has a strategy to future digital public service, it also has some methods to contact local innovators through informal and formal communication channels but there is a need to better promote innovative concepts and KCCs intention. This is due to the lack of business process and participatory approach which impedes the implementation of this strategy. The following framework is about a guideline for promoting the collaboration by showing the advantage and benefit in engaging with KCC so that local innovators can see the value creation and synergy that can be generated. Then I will propose a strategic approach to manage this collaboration with local innovators whatever the context of prototyping of new services, co-creation of innovative concepts or development of open innovation. I suggest that the collaboration should be promoted through a model of communication plan with four components. 5.1. Resources and supports The first component refers to the available resources and supports, it should be emphasised so that local innovators are convinced that KCC makes certain a safe and efficient environment to experiment and develop solutions for future digital public services. For example; the Open Kent or Innovation playground platform have a coming technology infrastructure ready to be exploited including storage services, access to a wide range of data base, connection with external provider such as Google or Amazon. Apart from the hardware and facilities offered by KCC, there are also supports for achieving prototypes of new services such as ownership and partnership agreements while minimising bureaucracy and waste. Finally as a supporter for the development of innovation, KCC can act as an interface between local innovators and other local authorities, for example; the Kent Economic Board to help local innovators businesses grow. This first component of the model is called Resources and supports. 5.2. Working practices Secondly, the promotion of KCCs concept should also take into account the message addressing to local innovators in terms of working practices, as they are extremely sensitive to these according to the interviews outcomes. In order to make them confident in engaging with KCC, this latter should commit to collaborate in the ethical and rules manner, it is important to show this commitment via the warranty of dialogue and transparency. In doing so concerns about relationship and openness have a chance to be mitigated at the earlier stage. Therefore trust in working with KCC would be reinforced. In addition, empowerment 12

should be given to local innovators to put into light the desire for KCC to share with them the decision making and control. This rule is a key factor to give collaboration a character much more attractive, because local innovators will not solely have the feeling that they can contribute to generate benefit for themselves and the community, but they can also take part to improve or adjust innovative concepts. These form the second component called working practices. 5.3. Collaborators The next component of the model is about the relationship between potential stakeholders involving in the test and development of new services through Innovation playground, Open Kent or further innovative concepts. KCC should demonstrate the possibility to work with various types and profile of stakeholders collaborating together for delivering these new services. But the word stakeholder is not fully appropriate to the language and message that local innovators want to hear, at least for some interviewees. As a result it is suggested that the word collaborator or associate would be used instead of stakeholder especially when they are already involved. In addition the term collaborators encompass not solely local innovators but it can also include volunteers, professional related to SME or corporate, academic and government stakeholders. In doing so, local innovators are sure that their engagement with KCC is also an opportunity to exchange experiences and knowledge with other collaborators through the diversity of participants. Therefore the involvement would foster innovation as collaborators bring original and complementary approaches to solve challenges. Moreover, the promotion of the participation should highlight the opportunity for partnership and team working between collaborators themselves and with KCC as well. All these elements would contribute to instil enthusiasms and interests to local innovators. As a result, the communication plan must put in light the interaction between participants which form the collaborators component in the model. 5.4. Value creation The final component of this model is about value creation generated by the composite of the three last components. It reflects the credibility of the resources and supports to develop prototypes, the diversity of participants and the quality of relationship in term of working practices. Participants must be convinced that this involvement with KCC for developing future digital public services is an opportunity to create values both for the community and for them. Value for the community means developing services that citizens find consistently useful. In todays economy such services are based on understanding citizen needs with increasing speed and precision. Therefore local innovators contributions are invaluable for the community because their commitment, energy and imagination make innovation happens. Value for local innovators means ownership, network and wider audience, being involved in decision-making, meaningful work, compensation opportunities, reputation; continued development...There is also value for opportunity to growth business. The last component is extremely important to attract local innovators because it represents the outcome of this involvement in terms of interest and sustainability. This model of promoting the innovative concepts and collaboration can be applied in the communication plan and advertisement on the KCCs website for example. It can be applied to any purpose of involvement such as prototyping new services, co-creation of concepts or development of open innovation.

13

Graph1

6. A strategic approach to manage collaboration

According to the TransformedByYou and Prototyping reports the questions of identification of local innovators and issues to retain them have already been arisen. The purpose of this section is to design a framework to attempt to respond both to these questions and mitigate the weakness mentioned previously. Similarly to the model of communication plan this strategic approach can be applied in any context of involvement such as prototyping, cocreation or open innovation. The framework is formed by a cycle of consecutive activities as described below: - Clarification of the purpose for which the stakeholder is involved - Stakeholders analysis (identification, understanding characteristic, patterns of interaction between local innovators) - Selection of the appropriate involvement technique - Implementation of the involvement technique - Evaluation - Improvement and adjustment 6.1. Clarification of the purpose The first stage of this framework is to clarify the purpose of local innovator involvement. For example; in the prototyping context local innovators are required to generate idea and design a solution to solve the challenge defined beforehand (TransformedByYou challenges). Therefore the purpose is to set up a joint implementation which means that local innovators are directly involved in realizing this prototype and make a significant contribution to realization. Another example that related to the co-creation of innovative concept is the consultation of stakeholders in order to get their views and feedbacks before a design is planned. This could be applied to the TransformedByYou event design, indeed some interviewees regretted to not being involved at its earliest stage. Other purposes can be considered according to the context such as getting approval from stakeholders to persuade stakeholders to agree to a project, group decision-making to share and control decision-making involving directly stakeholders, consensus-building to reach consensus on the project whatever the stakeholders interests, giving information to inform stakeholders about a project then persuading them to do something specific with (for example Pic&Mix).

14

Graph2 6.2. Stakeholder Analysis 6.2.1. Identification The second stage is to identify the stakeholder from the purposes defined previously. KCC already has very good ways to identify them for example the face to face meeting events (Twuttle, Tuttle 101), digital social media network, events listings, national innovation programmes, students or people who have worked in similar activities. In addition, information from written records and population data would be useful to identify potential stakeholders as well. 6.2.2. Understanding stakeholders characteristic The third stage is to understand the characteristics, interests and circumstances of the stakeholders which represent the key to gain and ensure their cooperation. Methods are interviews, brainstorming, research on data from reports, newspapers and so on. The result of this stage is a map of stakeholders interests and issues, their desired supports and project roles coupled with their skills. An example of this map is shown in the first part where feedbacks, benefits and competencies from interviewees are thoroughly listed. It also should show the current status of each stakeholder in term of attitude such as advocate, supporter, critic or blocker. For example; one of the interviewees is an advocate and supporter of the TransformedByYou innovative concept but criticises the Cloud System platform in the Innovation Playground. This stage is crucial to detect factors that drive or hinder motivations. 6.2.3. Patterns of interactions between stakeholders The fourth stage is to identify the patterns of interactions between stakeholders. The elements of interactions should be recognized including conflict and cooperation, ethnic and religious, cultural divisions, historical contexts and authority relationships. In addition an assessment of the influence and importance of stakeholder is useful as well. Influence refers to the power and attitude that a stakeholder wields over others. It conveys to an ability of persuasion to take particular decision and act in certain ways. Importance refers to the degree of the impact that affects the stakeholder involving with KCC according to his interests, needs and problems. It is essential to have an insight of risks and opportunities of working in group, this is essential to manage efficiently the relationship between stakeholders and with KCC project initiator as well. The interview conducted previously did not enable to draw the patterns of interactions between stakeholders because it was not designed for purpose. Once stakeholders are identified and selected for the purpose of prototyping, co-creation or development of open innovation, it is necessary to establish fruitful dialogue between them and with KCC designer group; some key actions as follow reflect this dialogue: - allow stakeholders to take part in the identification of other stakeholders - ensure parties are prepared to have well-informed opinions and decisions 15

involve stakeholders in defining the terms of engagement (for example partnership) create feeling of belonging through shared vision and objectives enable dialogue in a two-way information feed

Moreover the willingness of stakeholders to participate must be well clarified at this stage. This assessment is based on their costs and benefits deriving from their involvement and their capabilities and abilities to participate in this process. In addition to key actions above the stage four is also an opportunity to ask stakeholders to give their opinion on how they perceive themselves and their relationship with other stakeholders. The degree of influence and importance can be combined in Graph3 below giving a definition of the strategy for engagement according to the stakeholder s characteristic. It aims at helping project initiators to make decision for successful collaboration in the sense that it provides a basis for defining who should participate and in what ways. It is important to act efficiently to retain valuable stakeholders because the project on which they are involved may be quite important but they are weak in terms of influence.

Graph3

6.3. Selection of the appropriate involvement technique The next stage is about the selection of appropriate stakeholder involvement techniques. The form of stakeholder involvement includes the following element but the list is not exhaustive: - Information - Control - Consultation - Forming partnership or alliance - Turning over or exchange responsibility and decision making - Monitoring The stakeholder involvement technique tells us how we want the stakeholder involved and how it relates to the type of purpose mentioned in the first stage. However the role of an individual stakeholder can change during the lifetime of the project or collaboration. This assessment of involvement technique is undertaken by the project initiator with or without negotiating with stakeholders. The table below shows the combination of what stakeholder involvement technique for what purpose. 16

Table5
Purpose Press urize * Ince ntive Medi a Cam paign Giv e inf or ma tio n Foc us gro up * Involvement technique Su rv ey Ro un d ta bl e gr ou ps Scen ario work shop Subgroup to develo p actions progra mmes Future worksh op Adv oca cy pla nni ng Con sens us conf eren ce Medi ation

Getting + approval from stakeholder Information Consultatio n Formingconsensus Group decisionmaking Joint implementin g

++

++

++ + ++ + + + ++ ++ ++

++

++

++

Empty= not suitable += suitable ++=very suitable

* Pressurize: to put pressure on stakeholders so that they are more or less forced to do something. Focus group: To moderate discussion in a small group.

For example the prototyping of new services based on the challenges for the next TransformedByYou event (Innovation playground) could refer to the purpose of joint implementation, therefore there is a need to involve stakeholders in the design of scenario workshops and advocate the planning to develop the prototype. Then there is a creation of sub-group of stakeholders who represent the new service developed. Therefore the techniques for involving them are the design of scenario workshop, advocacy of planning and creation of sub-group for developing specifically the prototype. Another example is the involvement of stakeholders as consulting in order to help to design innovative concept. They are involved at the earliest stage by forming a focus group then a survey is designed to collect their opinions and recommendations. Then scenario workshops are created for evaluating with them the feasibility of the concept, its efficiency and impact. 6.4. Implementation of the involvement technique The next stage is the implementation of the selecting involvement technique. Once the purpose and involvement technique is selected it is important to promote this collaboration by using the model of the communication plan described previously. In addition further points must be clarified in doing this implementation such as shared interests, transparency, resources, competencies of participants and their motivations. Finally stakeholders should

17

be informed as to their role within this involvement process and as to what they can expect from the results in order to prevent any misunderstanding or disappointment. 6.5. Evaluation, improvement and adjustment After the implementation of the involvement technique according to the intended purpose, there is a need to evaluate the previous activities and improve it or adjust it as necessary. The design of the stakeholder involvement technique is also impacted by this evaluation. These could be done by asking the stakeholders their satisfaction with regards to the form, development and result. This evaluation can also impact the role of stakeholders and the stage of decision making at which stakeholders became involved. Recommendation The result from the research and interview with internal KCC members has shown that leadership in innovation culture is needed. Without this leadership successful involvement of local innovators or others stakeholders is impeded. It also leads to mitigate the reputation of rigidity and hierarchical organization such as within KCC. As a result local innovators would be keener to participate and involvement technique mentioned above would be easier to implement. The whole process forming the strategic approach to collaboration is described in the diagram below including the communication plan model and action to be taken from KCC. Graph4

CONCLUSION Opportunities and challenges of collaborating with local innovators are identified based on the general framework of managing innovation in the public sector and interviews with internal and external stakeholders. Opportunities are seen as the mutual benefits and advantages for both KCC and local innovators. Among these opportunities there are transfer 18

of knowledge and experience, acquisition of resource and support, extension of audience and network. The challenges are seen as the difficulties and issues of collaborating with KCC. These are about administrative process, value creation and relationship. The research has also identified internal issues such as the lack of innovation culture within the entire KCCs organization, the leadership to foster this culture and the reputation of being rigid or hierarchical structure. As a result these issues hinder the involvement process of being successful to prototype new services for tackling local challenges co-create innovative concepts and develop open innovation. It is useful to design a strategy to promote and manage the collaboration with a local innovator. For that purpose, a model of communication plan for attracting local innovators was designed. It aims at highlighting the commitment of KCC to work with external stakeholders in an ethical and rule manner. It also demonstrates the benefits and advantages described previously. In addition a model of participatory approach and involvement technique was designed for delivering a guideline to manage the collaboration. This latter is coupled with the model of communication plan for drawing up a strategic perspective to collaborate with local innovators more effectively. This is not solely suitable to the context of prototyping future digital public services but it can also be extended to other context such as co-creation of innovative concepts. Therefore the proposed strategic approach to collaboration can be seen as a strategic route map to develop open innovation.

19

APPENDIX A. List of interview questions 1) How do you identify appropriate local innovators to get them involved in the development of a specific prototype? 2) Do you think that an innovative culture is supported from the top management? 3) Do you know any form of developing organizational priorities to guide innovation? 4) Is there any recognition to encourage experimentation to take place? 5) Have you seen any increase or existing rewards for innovative team/individual (financial, recognition based, efforts value are clearly communicate)? 6) How can you measure the necessary resources for innovation (organizational, structure, technology, space, time, central fund)? 7) Do you believe that the diversity of your staff in term of background and perspective is sufficient to foster innovation and prototyping? 8) Do you look at what is being done externally in term of similar projects and prototypes that you want to achieve? 9) Do you feel that the innovativeness is encouraged at your staff level? 10) Is there a promotion of learning and evaluation of success or failure from previous development of prototype or ideas? 11) Do you know a staff member considered as an innovation champion? 12) Do you consider that innovation is a distinct activity from your own task and responsibilities? 13) Do you think that innovation is a part of your personal development plan? 14) Is there any policy to achieve stakeholder participation and engagement in the development of ideas and prototypes? 15) Do you see obstacles to implement innovation such as: a. hostile and sceptical attitude b. difficulty in coordinating organizations c. logistical problems d. difficulty in maintaining the enthusiasm e. introduction of new technology f. middle management resistance 16) In term of political environment do you experience difficulties to implement innovation such as : a. inadequate funding or resources b. legislative or regulatory constraint c. political opposition 17) Do you feel that external stakeholder doubts the effectiveness of your prototypes or innovation that you would like to implement with them? 18) Do you have regular feedback from participants and demonstrate early ongoing success? 19) Do you believe that communication is efficient between stakeholders and project initiators with regards to the appeal to get more involved in the process of prototyping new ideas? 20) Do you think that you have little opportunity or legitimate role to influence the design of development or implementation of the prototype by working with KCC innovation? 21) Is there any lack of communication and document in the development of prototype? 22) Is there any lack of communication and document in the development innovative project designed by KCC? 23) Do you feel to have opportunity, confidence and competence to help KCC in the development of new ideas and prototypes? 24) Have you had any formal proposal from KCC to help them to prototype new ideas? 20

25) What is your expectation in term of rewards/incentive in working with KCC to implement prototypes or new ideas? 26) Do you believe that your contribution to KCC for prototyping its ideas would have a benefit for your creativity, imagination and social inclusion?

21

GLOSSARY Network: this word is used in the sense of social network and refers to a group of people sharing the same interests and needs. Local challenge: this refers to an issue or problem that KCC attempts to solve by submitting it to potential local innovators. The issue can be arisen by the general public or KCC. The objective is to elaborate new idea for responding to this issue then local innovator search to develop a prototype. An example is the reporting problem via the use of smart-phone application. Digital public service (DPS): This refers to the applications of Internet Technology that are designed to respond to the citizens need and to improve community outcomes. The use of those applications also intensifies the access to and delivery of services for citizens, business partners and employees. REFERENCES David Adbury (2005): Fostering Innovation in Public Services, Public Money & Management, Jan2005, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p51-56, 6p. Hans-Joachim Mosler (2004): A framework for stakeholder analysis and stakeholder involvement, International Water Management Course 2004. United States Government Accountability Office (2006): Fisheries management: Core principles and a strategic approach would enhance stakeholder participation in developing Quota-Based Programs, Report to Congressional Requesters, GAO-06-289. Robert Robertson, Rob Ball: Innovation and Improvement in the Delivery of Public Services: The Use of Quality Management Within Local Government in Canada, Public Organization Review: A Global Joumai 2: 387-405 (2002) Lemuria Carter, France Blanger (2005): The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factor, Info Systems J (2005)15, 525 s Paul Joyce: Management and innovation in the public services, Strategic Change, Strat Change 7, 1930 (1998) John Taylor, Miriam Lips and Joe Organ: Information-Intensive government and the layering and sorting of citizenship, PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT APRIL 2007 Benjamin Mosse* & Edgar A. Whitley (2009): Critically classifying: UK e-government website benchmarking and the recasting of the citizen as customer, Info Systems J (2009) 19, 149173 Wendy Olphert, Leela Damodaran: Citizen Participation and engagement in the Design of e-Government Services: The Missing Link in Effective ICT Design and Delivery, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Volume 8, Issue 9, Article 4, pp. 491-507, September 2007 David Boyle, Anna Coote, Chris Sherwood, Julia Slay: Right here, right now- Taking coproduction into the mainstream, Discussion paper, NESTA, July 2010 Kent Economic Board: Kent and Medway Local Enterprise Partnership: Towards a pragmatic solution for economic growth, July 2010 22

Kent County Council: 21st Century Kent- A blue print for the countys future, Jan 2010. Kent County Councils websites: http://transformedbyyou.blogspot.com/ http://picandmix.org.uk/

23