Introduction
Societies are faced with sophisticated economic and social challenges mainly characterized by pandemics, diseases, poverty, unemployment, environmental problems, insecurity, and conflicts. Bloch and Bugge (2013) argued that e ven though governments have over the years articulated development programs and policies that need innovative approaches to solve much of the issues as mentioned earlier, the speed, and rate at which this is achieved has been slowed down. Gil-Garcia, Helbig, and Ojo (2014) argued that governments all over the world have started on significant reforms within the public service with the central aim of transforming the sector to align it to development agendas and strategies. These strategies need to be useful, responsive, and practical towards making an influence on the social-economic progression in the country. Innovation remains one of the most exceptional transformative methodologies in public service innovative ideologies. The paper is going to define and articulate the conception of the management of the public sector innovation with a significant emphasis on leveraging the private service, benchmarking, team management, quality management, reengineering and strategic planning.
According to Pimentel and Major (2016) t he concept of public sector management is established out of the need for instilling and getting value for innovative ideas and service delivery. Innovation, however, is different from the known bureaucratic management of organizations. Innovative management in the public sector remains unknown, new and risky with governments having a constitutional responsibility, democratic duty, and administrative decree to ensure that services delivery is achieved ( Brown & Osborne, 2013) . According to Bloch and Bugge (2013) m anaging such a complex web of intricacies is no doubt sophisticated in which the risk of innovation looks greater as compared to the status quo. At the same time, innovative ideologies rarely get along well with the pecking order that ensures that accountability, stewardship reduce risk-taking endeavors. The context where a government alters the risk equation raises the concept of social inequality, fiscal austerity, in addition to changing demographics. These are forces that put unnecessary pressure on transformed management within the public sector. These problems only add undue influence for governments to improve on utilizing innovative ideas towards solving public challenges ( Gil-Garcia et al., 2014). It thus requires an administrative plan to come up with new innovative solutions anchored on strategic principles instead of refining or improving existing projects. Effective public service management has no doubt played a critical role in the growth and development of public service delivery and continue to stand out as the most fundamental and practical transformative aspect.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I nnovation within the public sector requires a systematic management plan ( Cohen, Eimicke & Heikkila 2013) . The approach is aimed at helping the government and reformers to traverse through their undertakings and diligently align their efforts.
Public service management requires coming to terms with the context of service delivery and the intended innovation. Ever since the early 1980s, most governments use New Public Management, an intensive reform procedure that is aimed at enacting numerous changes in public service delivery. It not only establishes the right context of management but also helps pioneers within the government to pose the right questions to understand their position to make sure the project succeeds. Bloch and Bugge (2013) foretell that u nderstanding the situation is critical towards grasping the context of the innovative idea or service delivery. Without understanding the meaning of the concept, the probability of failure is very high. Public sector management innovation is anchored on various concepts. They include leveraging the private sector, team management, benchmarking, quality management, reengineering, strategic and strategic planning.
Strategic Planning
Governments rarely thrive in strategic planning. They seldom succeed in the execution of any outlined strategic plan they ever try. Thus, most times, government leaders scuffle to bring about changes, especially in meeting goals and objectives. According to Brown and Osborne (2013) t he key to improving the government’s failure concerning strategic planning is to understand how leaders enact their plans. Many issues affect the public sector concerning adopting and using strategic planning to roll-out innovative ideas. They include bureaucratic processes, political and party affiliation, and type of leadership style used by the government ( Gil-Garcia et al., 2014). Others include frequent change of leaders, risk culture, elective fever, regulations, and entrenched hierarchies to overcome and promote strategic planning. Four plans can governments need to enact strategic measures that are specifically aimed at eliminating or eradicating the challenges as mentioned earlier be utilized towards the same, and they include; promoting a strategic culture, building a learning and execution system, changing the operational structure, and leveraging strategic purpose towards catalyzing action.
Re-establishing strategic planning is about building enduring systems that will overcome the obstacles as mentioned above. It entails meeting metrics, schedule, and mission statements. It is about making sure that properties are put following the needs and holding public servants accountable. It entails finding solutions to arising problems ( Bloch & Bugge 2013) . The above measures will not only help the government stay on course towards enacting strategic measures but will also enable it to fight the appropriate challenges and deliver valuable service to the people.
Reengineering
Initially, reengineering was a concept that was designed to help transform how the public sector improves its business, competitiveness, and operations. However, in the past couple of years, reengineering has stood out as a technique of influencing policy-making, scholars, and professionals within the public service ( Brown & Osborne 2013) . Reengineering has gradually stood out as a stylish but aggressive way of progressing and redefining public service principles and values in addition to systems and methods of government formalities that have often been considered as old-fashioned and incompatible with modern trends of the political and socio-economic environment.
It is evident that through the above challenges that majorly entail government formalities, and arising logistic expectations of citizens create a problematic position for leaders. With declining natural resources, decentralization, enterprise, and market dynamics, competitiveness, and globalization, the continued rise and application of technologies are presenting new scenarios within the public service. Reengineering has stood out as the median of transition, especially with modern-day systematic mapping and the certainties of the multiple settings ( Pimentel & Major 2016) . Reengineering techniques and tools are gradually taking center stage in exploiting, redesigning, and restructuring the public sector through technology. Reengineering is about restructuring the government, reinventing operations, and aligning government operations with emerging technologies. It also espouses alterations in government formalities, especially in adopting entrepreneurial practices within government operations; thus, the term entrepreneurial government. Gil-Garcia et al., (2014) maintained that considering how outlined frameworks and models work within the government, reengineering is the perfect tool to drive invention. In applying reengineering concepts, governments are positioned to undertake radical measures and changes during the enactment of inventive ideas. Similarly, the public sector is bound to benefit from improved quality of service, cycle time, quality, and cost. It will, at the same time, improve the operations and competitiveness of government operations. Through this, a government can transform its service delivery, enact and improve on its network and business processes in addition to having a leaner, more straightforward, and effective strategy to meeting its goals and objectives.
Quality Management
QM is a discipline that ensures that benefits, processes, and outputs meet citizens or stakeholders needs and requirements and at the same time, meet their central purpose. QM has four important constituents that include continual improvement, quality control, quality assurance, and quality planning. All the above components aim at ensuring that processes, projects, service, and programs meet the needs of citizens regarding service delivery. According to Bloch and Bugge (2013) t he concept of quality management is aimed at ensuring that service delivery meets the expectations of all stakeholders or citizens. It ensures that correct standards and procedures are utilized and implemented during project or service delivery. QM would stand as an excellent strategic tool in ensuring that innovations met the expectations set ( Gil-Garcia et al., 2014). For example, it would be utilized in providing that standards set are in line with all other strategies set and outlined. In standalone projects, QM helps in developing strategic plans lessening administrative burdens and at the same time, reducing deliverable goals. These may be expressed in a wide-ranging way to reduce the difficulty of enacting innovative ideas and projects ( Brown and Osborne 2013) . QM is essential within the public sector as it ensures that standards are met, procedures are in accordance to set plans and stakeholders, innovators and the governments derive maximum satisfaction from projects launched.
Benchmarking
Benchmarking entails evaluating and comparing a project against a set standard. It is a tool for getting a particular measure. At the same time, it describes getting the best performance that can be achieved within a sector. It is an essential aspect within the private sector as it can help in identifying significant loopholes within the public sectors service delivery or processes undertaken. According to Jakobsen and Andersen (2013) t he primary purpose of benchmarking is to assist in maintaining a competitive advantage, focuses on the best initiatives for the public and adapt to the public’s needs. Benchmarking is very important towards identifying the best innovative idea that can resonate well with the public and satisfy their needs. For example, strategic benchmarking can be used by the government towards analyzing and identifying the best performance that will bring the most benefit to the public. Often, the public’s fulfillment is majorly motivated by critical-to-quality processes ( Pimentel & Major 2016) . For example, when considering the best innovative idea for a given public demand, it is crucial to find the concerns of the public to ensure that the creative idea resonates with the people positively.
Regular benchmarking by the government helps outline and set accurate demands, thus improving key public service objectives. Undertaking contract benchmarks also assist in proper utilization of funds allocated for a particular initiative or innovation. Depending on the type of change in focus, reference can be aimed at various innovative projects that include applications, business dimension unit, telecom and network, and infrastructure. Achieving the set target can no doubt help in realizing success in other various related sectors within the public service.
Team Management
Team management can be achieved within the public service to drive and accomplish the objectives of a given innovation. Various team management tools and techniques available for the purpose include delegation through the multiple units of the public sector, motivation, and encouragement of the civil servants towards meeting set objectives, development, communication, and discipline. Bloch and Bugge (2013) maintained that Communication plays a critical role in outlining innovations, primary goals, and objectives. For example, by using the meeting to brainstorm and facilitate public sector cooperation, all units and components of the public sector will find a way of deriving the best from public sector initiatives.
Leveraging the Public Sector
The strategy of leveraging provides an opportunity for constant scrutiny of both the private and public sector inventiveness towards motivating organizations and companies to utilize their management prowess in improving performance. Leveraging the private sector has the advantage of contributing to the protection of the environment, for example, a company’s management strategies are essential towards shaping environmental performance thus helping in bringing about change towards innovative ideologies and practices.
Conclusion
Various approaches and strategies can be utilized in advancing innovative ideas and practices within the public sector. The ever increasing need and people’s expectations to provide services effectively and efficiently despite dwindling resources has put the public sector in a strong position. Accelerating innovation is critical towards meeting these growing demands. It no doubt comes as a challenge and a necessity in keeping with the public’s needs. However, by the use of appropriate tools and techniques such as benchmarking and leveraging the private sector, the public sector stands better chances in the utilization of its resources and management practices towards achieving its set objectives. The public sector can thus transform its service delivery by turning its ideas inside-out, initiating public-private centers, using technology and evolving internal competencies. By enforcing team management, reengineering, enacting strategic management practices, and adhering to quality management, the public sector can apply innovative strategies towards meeting the public’s needs.
References
Bloch, C., & Bugge, M. M. (2013). Public sector innovation—From theory to measurement. Structural change and economic dynamics , 27 , 133-145. https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/55795978/1_s2.0_S0954349X13000477_main.pdf
Brown, L., & Osborne, S. P. (2013). Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services. Public Management Review , 15 (2), 186-208.
Cohen, S., Eimicke, W., & Heikkila, T. (2013). The effective public manager: Achieving success in government organizations . John Wiley & Sons.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly , 31 , I1-I8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X14001300
Jakobsen, M., & Andersen, S. C. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review , 73 (5), 704-713. http://perpustakaan.unitomo.ac.id/repository/Coproduction%20and%20Equity%20in%20Public%20Service%20Delivery%20(pages%20704%E2%80%93713).pdf
Pimentel, L., & Major, M. (2016). Key success factors for quality management implementation: evidence from the public sector. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence , 27 (9-10), 997-1012. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14783363.2015.1055239
