The interrelationship between strategy as practice and public service innovation and delivery: Academic history and evidence from Kuwait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the rare use of the term ‘strategy’ in public and voluntary sector organizations, recent research has seen the use of both the strategy and strategy-as-practice concepts in regulating the innovation perspective within the public sector. The available literature on innovation, strategy, and service delivery within the public sector offers positive insights into forming a new concept of innovation within the public organization sphere. Using a systematic review, we aim to understand the integration of the strategy-as-practice perspective into the public service ethos to drive the innovation perspective forward. The review was performed in two stages, 855 documents were retrieved in the first stage that covered a five-year time span, while 8,620,000 documents were retrieved in the second stage that covered a twenty-three-year time span. We further supported our argument through a quantitative questionnaire with 93 respondents from Kuwait. The findings of the research indicate that public sector policymakers need to pay attention to the social complexity of their context in order to innovate delivered public services. Furthermore, policymakers need to adopt new innovative schemes including innovative strategy practices, digital governance, reform ethos, and mutual constitution in their strategies in order to ensure the innovative public services that are required by their communities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".