Managing Innovation_innovation governance

www.CeTIM.orgProf. Dr. Bernhard R. Katzy

Innovation Governance

Prof. Dr. Bernhard Katzy

2012

www.CeTIM.org Wouter Mensink 2

Agenda

● Mini-Test

● Innovation governance: objectives and trends

● Three models of innovation governance

● Some governance concepts– Shift from government to governance– Multi-level governance

● Innovation governance in practice: the case of the Electronic Health Record

www.CeTIM.org

Wouter Mensink 3

www.CeTIM.org

The objective

By 2010 Europe should “… become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.”

- Lisbon Council of Ministers, March 2000

Three pillars:

- Economic

- Social

- Environmental

Wouter Mensink 4

Research

Growth and Jobs

EducationInnovation

Putting the « Triangle of knowledge » at work

www.CeTIM.org

The “Pro-Innovation Bias”

“It is often assumed by students of innovation phenomena that innovations are socially positive, and that individuals, organizations, and institutions desire the promotion of innovation. This is not necessarily the case, as the history of technical innovation suggests. While institutions can take actions along the lines noted above to encourage innovation, they also can take actions that discourage innovation” (King et al., p. 158)

Wouter Mensink 5

www.CeTIM.org

Supporting innovation by investing in R&D

Wouter Mensink 6

3,27 5,36 6,6

13,12 14,9617,5

53,3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1984-1987 1987-1991 1990-1994 1994-1998 1998-2002 2002-2006 2007-2013

€ Billion

FP6FP5FP4FP2 FP3FP1 FP7

There is a strong belief in the power ofinvestment…

Therefore, the so-called “FrameworkProgrammes have invested

heavily in mostly R&D since the mid 1980’s

www.CeTIM.org

Budget composition

Wouter Mensink 7

Ideas %15

People %9

Capacities %10

JRC %2

Euratom %6

Cooperation %57

Networks are getting bigger and bigger. What does that mean from a network management perspective?

www.CeTIM.org

Types of projects

Wouter Mensink 8

3 Funding Schemes – 5 “instruments”

Collaborative Projects (CP)– Small or medium scale focused research actions (STREP)

– Large Scale Integrating Projects (IP)

Networks of Excellence (NoE)

Coordination and Support Actions (CSA)– Coordinating or networking actions (CA)– Support Actions (SA)

STREP IP CSA

www.CeTIM.org

Which department?

On the basis of different definitions of what innovation is, which departments in government should do innovation policy?

What if we define innovation as:

1. “Turning ideas into money” (instead of turning money into ideas)

2. “The reality effects of invention”

3. “New ways of dealing with challenges”

4. “Putting new technologies to the market”

Wouter Mensink 9


Schematic overview of the first half of the class

Traditional state government

Supranationalauthorities

Local andregional

authorities

networkmarket

“Multi-level governance”

“Shift from government to governance”

www.CeTIM.org

Three governance models:hierarchy / bureaucracy

‘One of our hopes is that after the war there will be full employment.

First, we must have plenty of men and women trained in science, for upon them depends both the creation of new knowledge and its application to practical purposes. Second, we must strengthen the centers of basic research which are principally the colleges, universities, and research institutes.

For science to serve as a powerful factor in our national welfare, applied research both in Government and in industry must be vigorous

The most important ways in which the Government can promote industrial research are to increase the flow of new scientific knowledge through support of basic research, and to aid in the development of scientific talent.

Including Those in Uniform’

Wouter Mensink 11

www.CeTIM.org

Three governance models:New Public Management / market

‘DTI (1988): ‘Innovation is essential to sustain a competitive edge in world markets

The Government should nor take on responsibilities which are primarily those of industry.

The Government's view is that DTI's innovation policy should be focused primarily on the circumstances where research is necessary before commercial applications can be developed, or where the benefits of the research are likely to be-widespread, and on technology transfer

Concretely:

• Collaborative programmes

• Technology transfer

• End grants to individual companies’

Wouter Mensink 12

www.CeTIM.org

Three governance models:Network

‘Collaborative research will constitute the bulk and the core of Community research funding. The objective is to establish, in the major fields of advancement of knowledge, excellent research projects and networks able to attract researchers and investments from Europe and the entire world.

The Seventh Framework Programme will be carried out to [..] strengthen industrial competitiveness and to meet the research needs of other Community policies, thereby contributing to the creation of a knowledge-based society, building on a European Research Area and complementing activities at a national and regional level.

Funding schemes:

• collaborative projects

• networks of excellence

• coordination/support actions’

Wouter Mensink 13

www.CeTIM.org

Three governance models: views on government and technology

Wouter Mensink 14March 6, 2008

Bureaucracy Market / NPM Network

View on the role of government

Public provision of a function is more equitable, reliable and democratic than provision by a commercial or voluntary body - Dunsire, 1999, p. 361

“Government failure” or “public failure” argument replaces the traditional “market failure” argument: ‘[T]here is no market failure so bad that the US government and political process could not do even worse’ - Dixit (1993) in Moreau, 2004, p. 850

The role of public policy extends far beyond the mere correction of market failures [..] Public policy may facilitate the market process - Moreau, 2004, p. 847

View on technology

Determinist technology- and industrial policy implies that policy-makers would consider certain technological paths to be inevitable - Williams & Edge, 1996

Instrumental and ‘neutral’ view of technology: ‘technologies will just 'appear to order', in response to the demands of the market at any one time’ - Williams & Edge, 1996, p. 871

Constructionist view of technology: social/political construction of technology


Three governance models:views on organisation and coordination

Participation

Shared control in the network, through e.g. trust

Multiplicity of providers on collaboration basis

User-involvement in development

Immaterial motivation

Variety of agencies, enabling and regulatory role, contracting out.

Control through contracts, performance targets, competitive and trading relations.

Growing variety of providers, emphasis on choice.

Accountability to the customer.

Emphasis on motivation and new pay structures’

Self-sufficiency

Direct control

Uniformity

Accountability upwards

Standardized procedures

Bureaucracy Market / NPM Network

Based on: Stewart & Walsh, 1992


Schematic overview of the first half of the class


Supranationalauthorities

Local andregional

authorities

networkmarket

“Multi-level governance”

“Shift from government to governance”


Multi-level governance: globalisation

• The national state government is no longer the central authority in (innovation) policy; UN, OECD and the EU are major bodies

• Still, national governments usually constitute these international bodies

• The increase in mobility of people and goods often calls for new services and legislation, innovation is often used for this

• With the awareness of doing innovation in networks, many supra-national collaboration arose

Mytelka & Smith,2002


Multi-level governance: regionalisation and localisation

• Early 1990s: National Innovation Systems

• Late 1990s: Regional Innovation Systems

Remapping the regional map of Europe

Regions as “breeding grounds”, but regional borders as boundaries

• 2000s: Living Labs

• Notion that collaboration is easier with people in closer surroundings

• Implication: increasing pressure on regional and local governments to be involved in innovation

• Interestingly, there is frequent international collaboration between regions (stimulated by EU e.g.), “going around” the national level


Citizen-centricity & eParticipation

• Participatory governance, participatory design

• “Idealist” motivation: enhance democratisation

• “Opportunist” motivation: get a better feeling for adoption of policy and innovation

• User-centric or citizen-centric?

• Citizen-driven? Citizen-centred? Citizen-involvement?

Critical issue

• Representative democracy vs. direct democracy: how to deal with stakeholders and inclusion?

• Criticism of neo-liberalism as a driver for the ‘withdrawal of the state’ in favour of network of elite “holders”

• Accountability?


What do Forms of Institutional Action mean in practice?

King et al., 1994, p. 151

www.CeTIM.org

Governance of healthcare innovation

Wouter Mensink 21Author Name 21XX XXXXX XXXX

Community: the patient and his/her contextCase study on public and private systems for managing care in a networked

context – Master thesis project with Raymond de Vos

Individual: the patient (or consumer?) as principalCase study around the notion of personal healthcare budgets – Master thesis

project with ??


When do you need your healthcare data?


What if you are skiing?...

… are in need of more …or want to buy than one doctor?medication on eBay?

…or want to manage your health at home?

www.CeTIM.org

Standardisation

When you want to create interoperable health records, how do you standardise?

Focus on standardising information, or communication?

Focus on changing the supply, or demand-side of health care?

Who do you want to enable to “inscribe” their interests and visions in the future standard?

Industry? Governments? Academia?

Wouter Mensink 23

Thesis: Willem deRuiter

www.CeTIM.org

Mobilisation

How do you deal with mobilisation of demand, in a time of participative governance?

How do you allow users to “refuse” the administration of their data in the Electronic Health Record, if you have macro-level objectives?

By now, 330.000 Dutch citizens refused

What does it mean to put the patient in control?

Wouter Mensink 24

www.CeTIM.org

Regulation

The liberalisation of the healthcare sector implied, e.g.:

• Decentralisation: municipalities are made responsible for managing budgets

• Deregulation: more entities are allowed to provide healthcare services, not only homecare entrepreneurs, but also family members, for instance

• Networked care: all these players form networks, centred around a patient

Question:

1. What can/should the role of IT be in such networks?

2. How should IT development be organised?

Wouter Mensink 25

Thesis: Raymond de Vos

Community, neigh-

bourhoodpatient

MunicipalityP.B.

consultant

Care provider

InstitutionsEHR

Cleaningcompany

Family

www.CeTIM.org

Innovation directive

The movement of disabled people (“expert patients”) advocated strongly for having a personal budget, which they could manage to their own preference

By now, the number of users of the scheme is almost 100.000

Despite satisfaction, there are also strong complaints when it comes to the budget:

Administration is often too complex for people

There have been some widely discussed cases of fraud by “budget consultants”

Question: How to regulate this?

1. Do you regulate on the demand-side (who is eligible)?

2. … or on the supply-side (who can do consultancy)?

Wouter Mensink 26

www.CeTIM.org

SubsidiesYou can try to make the same thing in a project, but do it in

different ways, e.g. technology-push / pull:

Project 1 Project 2

How to give subsidies to get the type of innovation you want?

Wouter Mensink 27

www.CeTIM.org

Papers referred to in this lecture

Bush, V. (1945). Science: The Endless Frontier. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), 48, 231-264.

Dept.of Trade and Industry & Britain, G. (1988). DTI-the Department for Enterprise. HMSO.

Dunsire, A. (1999). Then and Now: Public Administration, 1953-1999. Political Studies, 47, 360-378.

European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2006). Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013). Official Journal of the European Union, L 412/1.

King, J. L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. L., McFarlan, F. W., Raman, K. S., & Yap, C. S. (1994). Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 5, 139-169.

Moreau, F. (2004). The role of the state in evolutionary economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 847-874.

Stewart, J. & Walsh, K. (1992). Change in the management of public services. Public Administration, 70, 499-518.

Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 865-899.

Wouter Mensink 28