The other day a friend complained to me bitterly of what they were archaic our administrations, his conservatism and aversion to risk permanent people working in it. In short, the limited existing innovative DNA in them.
Indeed this is the image that have the majority of citizens and businesses of our Administration. An image that we agree in good correspondence with reality. Let's face it.
But the thing is not as simple as it seems. On the one hand not talking about homogenous organizations formed by individuals under the same pattern cut . There are public, many of them competing openly in markets with private companies, which are a continuous process of adaptive changes in their environment. Others, such as those whose mission is to guarantee rights or to exercise authority effectively are more monolithic. I wonder if in this case we wish they were immersed in a continuous spiral innovative, stability and accuracy are core values \u200b\u200bthat surely also appreciate in these cases.
Moreover, within a single authority differences. There are internal entrepreneurs - from any category: executives, middle management or personal basis - they do tricks every day to do more with less giving such a good service to citizens with resources continuous decline. Moreover there are differences according to areas: those working in ICT departments or others with close contact with citizens, suppliers or other partners have a broader and more innovative activity than those who work in departments dedicated technostructure the exercise of bureaucratic power.
There are two additional variables to consider when it comes to innovation in public: politics and inner workings of Administration. The policy variable conditions decisively innovative activity within an administration. Can be accelerated by a boost in the form of an explicit mandate "from above" (if the tax office) or personalities of their top executives than good, by very nature or particular interest at that time (p.ejemplo, career), endow the organization of innovative drive required. That is unusual: innovation involves risk and risk implies the possibility of error. The politician has panic error, the electoral consequences for your own career that he could carry. It is therefore imperative conservatism.
The internal functioning of the Administration not facilitate innovation. In most of these bureaucratic power enjoying the splendor and imposes its criteria (eg controls) compared to the impulses of service managers and other stakeholders. Besides the few stimuli that people receive in these organizations, existing disincentives, pushes attitudes like "Why I am going to complicate life for nothing?".
conclude. Talk about innovation in the public has many nuances. It is complex and varied processes with different rates and success factors. It is necessary that we bear in mind.
0 comments:
Post a Comment