1
EMRE CINAR
Faculty of Business and Law
University of Portsmouth
Professor PAUL TROTT
Faculty of Business and Law
University of Portsmouth
Dr. CHRISTOPHER SIMMS
Faculty of Business and Law
University of Portsmouth
2
AN INTERNATIONAL EXPLORATION OF BARRIERS AND TACTICS IN THE
PUBLIC SECTOR INNOVATION PROCESS
ABSTRACT
This study deepens our knowledge on innovation barriers within public sector innovation (PSI)
processes. Our research contributes to the barrier approach to innovation. We develop a
conceptual framework, which expands the conventional view of barriers. The exploratory
empirical evidence based on 99 cases from Italy, Japan and Turkey identifies the dynamic
nature of the barriers within innovation processes. We uncover tactics that are used to overcome
these barriers and the mechanisms that can surprisingly contribute to fruitful outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to explore the nature of innovation barriers and the tactics utilised
to overcome them. The `barrier approach to innovation` (Hadjimanolis 2003) aims to uncover
inhibitors to innovation. Within the private sector innovation literature, D’Este et al. (2011)
introduced the concept of ‘revealed barriers’, which suggests that innovative organisations
reported a greater number of barriers, but also were able to overcome them. These barriers were
perceived as difficulties within the innovation process and did not negatively influence
innovation outcomes.
Recent studies have investigated D`este et al. `s proposition (2011) in the public sector context
and distinguished revealed barriers and deterring barriers. These studies also uncovered that
innovation barriers reported by public servants do not negatively affect innovative outputs
(Arundel et al. 2015; Torugsa and Arundel 2016; Demircioglu and Audretsch 2017). They
speculated innovators might be aware of these difficulties and are able to overcome them. Yet,
the PSI literature lacks studies which specifically examine the nature of revealed barriers.
Our study responds to calls for further research into the barriers to PSI and how they can be
overcome (see Hadjimanolis 2003; Borins 2014; Meijer 2015; Cinar et al. 2018). Recent
empirical research has attempted to measure PSI via extensive surveys such as the
Innobarometer within EU, the Australian Public Service Survey (APSS) and MEPIN within
Scandinavian countries. A limited number of these studies have attempted to analyse the
influence of barriers, as an independent variable, on innovation outcomes (e.g. Bloch and
Bugge 2013; Torugsa and Arundel 2015; 2017; Demircioglu 2017). This results in three
shortcomings:
3
Firstly, prior studies have analysed barriers as antecedents of innovation and predictors of
outcomes (see Demircioglu and Audretsch 2017). This fails to capture the dynamic nature of
barriers across the innovation process (Hadjimanolis 2003; Cinar et al. 2018). Moreover,
despite growing recognition of the shift towards a collaborative approach to PSI (Hartley et al.
2013; Torfing 2018), these studies have failed to examine the types of barriers stemming from
these interactions. Secondly, existing studies on tactics have either provided limited detail in
certain contexts (e.g. Borins 1998, 2000, 2014; Meijer 2015), or focused on specific internal
factors, such as empowerment and organisational attributes (e.g. Arundel et al. 2015). This
limits a wider appreciation of barriers and their influence. Thirdly, the literature lacks detailed
insight into how the barriers can affect the outputs positively (e.g. Torugsa and Arundel 2016).
To address these gaps, we conducted an exploratory study. The content of ninety-nine open-
questionnaire forms submitted in English to the United Nations Public Service Award
(UNPSA) was analysed. Our study consists of the complete population of semi-finalists from
Italy, Japan and Turkey between the years of 2009 and 2015. The unit of analysis is the entire
innovation process from idea development to implementation. Our study examines the nature
of revealed barriers within the PSI process, the tactics utilised to overcome them, as well as
their potential positive contribution to the PSI process. Our content analysis allows us to deepen
our understanding of the complex nature of `revealed barriers`, which are related to innovation
processes that produce positive outcomes (D`este et al. 2011).
This study provides three contributions to the literature. Firstly, in contrast to prior studies
which have simply identified and classified barriers, we apply and empirically build on the
framework of a recent systematic review by Cinar et al. (2018) in order to uncover the dynamic
characteristics of innovation barriers within different stages of the innovation process across a
number of innovation types. In so doing, we also uncover the interrelations between the
revealed barriers. Secondly, our study is the first of its kind to independently investigate the
frequency of interaction specific barriers. This reveals the difficulties that emerge between the
parties of the innovation process. Indeed, these are the most frequently reported revealed
barriers. Thirdly, our findings from three separate countries, Italy, Japan and Turkey provide
an empirical contribution to this stream of literature where the study of international samples
is rare (Voorberg et al. 2014, De Vries et al. 2016).
4
THE NATURE OF BARRIERS
1. The Typology of Barriers
A variety of difficulties hinders organisations` efforts to innovate. Within the literature, these
have been labelled as barriers (Hadjimanolis 2003), obstacles (Borins 1998), inhibitors
(Osborne and Brown 2011) or problems (Keast and Brown 2006). D`este et al.’s (2011)
research differentiated between two types of barriers. Firstly, `revealed barriers` that slow the
innovation activities of organizations during the ongoing innovation process; and secondly,
‘deterring barriers’, which prevent the process itself from being initiated. Their study found
that revealed barriers were more common than deterring barriers. This led the researchers to
suggest that employees were not deterred by barriers, but were instead aware of and capable of
overcoming them within the process.
Prior studies have attempted to classify and analyse these obstacles. Borins (2014) suggested
that barriers can be categorised as either external or internal. Yet, this oversimplification fails
to capture the critical differences between contextual-external barriers and interaction specific
barriers. Contextual barriers are beyond the influence of public sector organisations (PSOs),
whereas interaction specific barriers are shaped by the relationships between the different
parties within the innovation process (Hadjimanolis 2003). Our study categorises revealed
barriers into five separate categories: i. Organisational, ii. insufficient resources, iii. innovation
characteristics related, iv. contextual and v. interaction-specific.
i) Organisational obstacles form most common within PSI (Borins 2014). Ineffective
administration of process activities is a key issue, with failures or difficulties in administration
impeding a number of activities within the process (Gardner et al. 2010; Piening 2011). Other
internal difficulties include; a resistance or lack of support from specific actors (Ezzamel et al.
2014), rigid organisational structure or culture (Azad and Faraj 2011), and a lack of skills,
knowledge or expertise (Weber et al. 2014). ii) Insufficient financial and human resources can
act as a barrier to the innovation process (Borins 2014). iii), innovation characteristics with
specific barriers include; incompatibility (Brown 2010), complexity and software problems
(Costa et al. 2013). iv) Contextual obstacles include: laws and regulations (Pelkonen and
Valovirta 2015), lack of standardisation (Raus et al. 2009) and socioeconomic factors (Kumar
et al. 2002; Gardner et al. 2010), which can also surface as barriers to slow the innovation
process.
5
Finally, in contrast to prior studies, we examine interaction-specific obstacles as a fifth type of
barrier in PSI. These obstacles have been found to play a crucial role in hampering innovation
activities (Cinar et al. 2018). Within the PSI process, a number of parties are commonly
involved, including: public organisations, contractors, citizen groups and NGO`s, political
entities, and even international organisations (Osborne and Brown 2011; Hartley et al. 2013).
Innovations involving multiple parties increase complexity (Hadjimanolis 2003). In addition,
the barriers that emerge between them cannot be described as internal or external, because they
are formed during the interaction and may be influenced by both parties. Recent survey-based
studies have failed to capture an understanding of how PSO’s overcome problems with
collaborators in the innovation process (e.g. Demircioglu and Audretsch 2017; Arundel et al.
2015). We argue that interaction specific barriers warrant detailed investigation, under a
specific and independent category, according to the different parties involved.
2. Typology of Innovations
Prior studies have noted that barriers to innovation vary depending on the type of innovation
being pursued (Osborne 2002; Hadjimanolis 2003; Damanpour and Schneider 2009; Walker et
al. 2011). Cinar et al.’s (2018) systematic review also identified differences in barriers
depending on the innovation type. They revealed that digital innovations primarily experience
organisational and content specific obstacles, whilst non-digital innovations faced interaction
specific barriers. Yet, their study failed to capture differences beyond these two innovation
types.
For the purposes of this study, we adopt the innovation typology developed by De Vries et al.
(2016) from their recent and comprehensive review of the literature. Their paper identified five
types; however, we argue that it is also necessary to include social innovations with their unique
nature, in accordance with Voorberg et al. (2014), as they aim to solve complex social problems
through collaboration and can utilise a combination of new services. This results in a total of
six key types. New service innovations form the first type. Second, administrative process
innovations refer to the creation of new ways, methods and forms of undertaking tasks within
the organisation. Third, technological process innovations involve the application of
technology to operational activities and service delivery mechanisms. Fourth, conceptual
innovations aim to impose novel concepts and frameworks to solve complex problems. Fifth,
governance innovations introduce new participation mechanisms for citizens, new ways to
increase transparency and accountability within the public sector. Lastly, social innovations
target social needs such as immigration, juvenile crime, homelessness, domestic violence, and
