An integrated planning, learning and innovation system in the decentralized public sector; a Norwegian perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTInnovation is doing things in new ways. Innovation involves changes in thinking, products, processes and organization. Many innovations in the public sector occur randomly as a reaction to crises or scandals, or when new leaders desire to show that they are capable. The problem with these innovations is that the public sector does not increase capacity to engage in continuous innovation. Therefore, there is a need to develop a system of innovation in the public sector. In this paper we set out three hypotheses: (1) the public sector does not build capacity to engage in continuous innovation; (2) the main cause of this is lack of accountability for outcomes; (3) reforms inspired by New Public Management (NPM) make it possible and necessary to create an integrated planning, learning and innovation system. In literature about planning systems, planning, evaluation and learning are connected, and the design of functional systems that contribute to connect planning and evaluation are regarded as essential to stimulate learning and innovation in both organizations and societies. Municipalities in Norway have implemented a planning system with institutional, strategic, tactical and operational planning and learning that has a potential to stimulate learning and innovation. We find that this system can be innovative if the practice becomes more communicative and network-based. Communicative innovation demands focus on the outcome of public sector production, and public sector units need to collaborate in order to fulfill societal needs and public sector values and missions. However, the influence of New Public Management reforms in the public sector is still very strong and public sector units are very output focused and self-centered. Lack of outcome accountability is a system failure and an obstacle in the process of stimulating innovative capacity in the public sector.Keywords: Planning, innovation, learning, public sectorPublic sector innovationInventions are not innovation, but to exploit inventions in a successful way in practice is innovation. Innovation involves changes in thinking, products, processes and organization. Changes count as innovations when they are new for the implementer, but not necessarily new to other businesses (Nelson and Rosenberg, 1993). Innovation in the public sector has two purposes. The first is to contribute to changes in thinking, products, processes and organization in the public sector and the second purpose is to contribute to innovation in the private and voluntary sectors. Innovation in the public sector is, according to Teigen (2007: 15), about three main themes: (1) the production of goods and services, (2) the organization of the sector and (3) policy process and government. Thus, innovation in a municipality is about production of goods and services within their area of responsibility. The municipalities in Norway are strongly involved in the welfare state production. Their responsibility for schools, kindergartens, and health care consumes a large portion of their budgets and is in need of systematic innovation. In addition, a municipality is a member of a region and is expected to contribute, together with other organizations, to innovations in society in terms of production, organization and policy. Consequently, the concept of learning organizations and learning regions becomes important in understanding municipal innovation.Many innovations in the public sector occur randomly as a reaction to crises or scandals, or when new leaders desire to show that they are capable. The problem with these changes is that the public sector does not build up a capacity to engage in continuous innovation. There is therefore a need to develop a system for innovation in the public sector. This systematic innovation work needs a management and control system where one learns from one's own experience and thus can be better able to meet new challenges. Learning and innovation can thus be viewed as a process in which actors try to find new ways to better realize their values, fulfill their interests and satisfy their needs. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it