1.02 Review article
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
UDK: 35:330.341.1:061.1EU Viera Kozakova
Faculty of Economics, Department of Public Economics and Regional Development, University of Matej Bel in Banska Bystrica viera.kozakova@umb.sk
ABSTRACT
The position of public sector in European countries is significant, especially now when Europe has a goal of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. The paper examines manners how public sector can contribute to achievement of this goal. The aim of the paper is to investigate the existing modern perspectives on public sector and find out the linkages between them. It deals with the role and importance of intelligence, innovation and creativity in public sector processes. It examines the nature of smart, innovative and creative approach to public sector, their main factors, indicators and variables. The purpose of the paper is to introduce and point out the mentioned approaches that may provide alternatives to previous procedures in public sector. The main findings are based on the main aim of this article, which is to develop a better understanding of innovative, smart and creative approach in public sector with a particular focus on the public involvement.
Key words: creativity, crowdsourcing, governance, innovation, public sector JEL: L38
1 Introduction
The position of public sector in European countries is significant. Due to different size and scope of public sector in each country, it is difficult to define its unified structure of processes, system of organizations, etc. What is common for every country is the fact that public sector provides public services, driven by a public interest that justifies particular attention from public authorities (Thenint, 2010). They deal with delivery of goods and services in the areas: general public services; defence; public order and safety; economic affairs; environmental protection; housing and community amenities; health; recreation, culture, religion; education and social protection (OECD, 2011).
The variety of public services increases the pressure on using more innovative and creative procedures for their better and more effective providing.
Kozakova, V. (2013). Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector. 83 Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, X/(3-4), 83-98.
Viera Kozáková
The attempts to improve processes and streamline public services are known as introducing of ICT options, which results in e-governance, or introducing management principles from private sector into public sector, known as New Public Management (NPM) concept. The European Year of Creativity and Innovation in 2009 has launched the idea that mainly creativity and innovation should take a central role in all public sector activities. This initiative emphasised that it is imperative to launch, develop and foster creative and innovative approaches not only in private sector, but also in public sector. The transition from smart through innovative to creative approach is a consequence of a need to cross-disciplinary solve world-wide challenges and tasks. The influence of globalisation has caused that it is important to change the existing form of public sector from inefficiency, bureaucracy and other negative features to a modern, smart and creative public sector. The article is dedicated to this issue.
The article is divided into two parts. The first part examines the available literature on innovation and creativity in public sector and it provides theoretical framework and overview of main indicators of smart, innovative and creative approaches to public sector. The second section compares the mentioned approaches and points out the linkages between them. Finally, the article concludes with the fact, that if public sector wants to be innovative and creative, it needs to involve citizens. With regard to the creative approach, using of crowdsourcing and its forms in public sector are highlighted.
The research methodology of the article requires gathering relevant information from the specified literature (Woodman et al., 1993; Borins 2001, 2006; Halvorsen et al., 2005; Giffinger et al., 2007; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2008; Windrum, 2008; Denhardt et al., 2009; Howe, 2009; Eviakova, 2010; Keifer, 2010; Thenint, 2010; Rothler & Wenzlaff, 2011; Yip, 2011; Eggers & Hamill, 2012) and the methodology of existing projects PUBLIN, European Smart Cities (listed below). The main methods used are causal and content analysis of documents, descriptive method due to better understanding of examined approaches, comparison of relevant indicators, induction, deduction and synthesis in the formation of final findings and proposals.
Based on scientific literature, the research question is: What are the main factors that affect the citizen's satisfaction with public sector through smart, innovative and creative manners?
2 Smart, Innovative and Creative Perspective on Public Sector
This part deals with the fact that smart, innovative and creative approach in public sector is not only a catchphrase, but an option to change operation of public sector through these manners. We examine theoretical background of smart, innovative and creative approach using a review of significant interesting projects that focus on factors and measurable indicators, which
84 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
might help to identify what the nature of presented approaches is. Before we introduce the theoretical definition of various approaches, it is important to stress that public sector carries out its activities through governance and the government is an institutionalised form of the governance.
2.1 Smart Governance
The idea of Smart Governance was complexly developed as a part of the project European Smart Cities. It was an initiative of research team from the Centre of Regional Science (at the Vienna University of Technology), from the OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies (at the Delft University of Technology) and from the Department of Geography (at the University of Ljubljana). Regarding to the significance and application of the idea, the research team identified factors and indicators for measuring of Smart Governance (Table 1).
According to Smart Governance Network, smart governance is focused on future of the public services through greater efficiency; community leadership; mobile working and continuous improvement through innovation. Smart Governance uses technology to facilitate and support better planning and decision making. The main reason is improving democratic processes and transforming the ways that public services are delivered through.
Table 1: Factors and indicators of Smart Governance
FACTORS	INDICATORS	LEVEL
Participation in decisionmaking	City representatives per resident	local
	Political activity of inhabitants	national
	Importance of politics for inhabitant	national
	Share of female city representatives	local
Public and social services	Expenditure of the municipal per resident in PPS	local
	Share of children in day care	local
	Satisfaction with quality of schools	national
Transparent governance	Satisfaction with transparency of bureaucracy	national
	Satisfaction with fight against corruption	national
Source: Own compilation according to Gffiinger et al. (2007).
As we can see, the main factors of smart governance are citizen's participation, satisfaction with public services, transparency. The indicators are divided according to the application level into those which should be realised by national government and those which should be priority of local government. With regard to the participation the openness in sense of equal opportunities (share of female representatives) and the interactive approach from citizens (political activity of inhabitants) are very important. In the project European Smart Cities education was principally selected as the main public service, others are missing (which we see as a deficiency of this model). Transparency as the third main factor of smart governance is also considered as the main
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 85
Viera Kozáková
goal of many governments because it is the most important attribute for building trust in government.
Sometimes it is appropriate to see 'public things' by 'private eyes'. IBM prepared in 2010 a short guideline for public sector how to achieve smart governance through 6 steps. There are namely (1) set & communicate goals; (2) define metrics; (3) define how decisions will be made; (4) communicate policies; (5) measure outcomes; (6) audit.
Setting of goals is the first step, because governance needs to define specific, measurable and directly tied to processes or initiatives goals. We distinguish situational and sustainable goals. Situational goals are based on key performance indicators (KPIs) which measure deficiency in concrete program (e.g. impact on data quality) and they are directly tied to goals or critical factors of success. Sustainable goals should be based on scientific assessment and should point out where organisation wants to be in future. Sustainable goals are directly tied to concrete expectations of government.
Without metrics it is not possible to assess if government achieves its goals. The defining of metrics is necessary as a source of information needed for monitoring.
The third step is oriented on means how to make a decision. There are many types of decision-making models. If council decisions are made by majority, unanimity or super-majority is a representative decision-making model. In contrast, if a local-empowerment model is used, it means that data stewards with delegated authority can make their own decisions without council consultation. The third type of decision-making model is a hierarchical-type model, which is applied when some decisions require speed and authority. Decisions are sent right to the top, or require consultation with other groups. However, there are situations when having a crowd participating in decisions creates ownership, which is desirable, even if it makes decision times longer. Government might use crowd-based decision making - based on social networking solutions, with engagement of more stakeholders. This model is considered as market-based model, because of using internal stakeholders to build buy-in for enterprise-wide decisions.
The fourth step - communicate policy - is about the need for policies to be understood by all people, so it is important to set how well policies are being communicated. It consists of various communication tools, for instance verbal announcements, emails, written documents, special software, and methods such as changes in business glossary definitions, database table structures, encryption or data transformation.
In addition, in order to achieve collective goals, it is important to measure also outcomes, i.e. how well policies achieve sustainable and situational goals. Auditing is the key process and technique underlying many of the measurable steps above. But it is not a yearly or monthly activity; audit should be set up
86 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
all the time. The proposed procedure (IBM, 2010) might serve as a guideline for local or state government and their organisations how to achieve smart processes and systems in their governance.
2.2 Innovative Governance
At first we state the taxonomy in relation to innovation in public sector with several types of innovation in public sector and their main characteristics (Table 2).
Table 2: Types of innovation in public sector
type of innovation	notes/examples		characteristics
a new or improved service	online platform, portal health care at home		use of new technology
a process innovation	new or altered ways of supplying public goods and services a change in the manufacturing, providing of a service or product		process improvement - some types of innovation make administrative processes and the delivery of services faster, more accessible, targeted and/or user-friendlier
an administrative and policy innovation	use of a new policy instrument, changes to thinking or behavioural intentions which may be a result of policy change		empowerment of staff, citizens or communities - there are some phases of empowerment (consultation, progressive invitation to participate in the elaboration or even the implementation of new policies or services)
a system innovation	establishment of new system (organizations) or fundamental change of an existing system	BY MEANS OF	system approach -	based on the coordination of various organizations' activities -	fostering inter-organisational collaboration, cooperation and interaction -	implementation of systematic data cross-check procedures -	implementing integrated, multi-faceted services (single desks / portal delivering a wide range of services)
a conceptual innovation	change in the outlook of involved actors development of new views and new concepts		involving of private or voluntary sector - this means opening up some public sector activities (under certain conditions) to private sector competition or also refer to the use of NGOs for support activities, PPPs, the use of private consulting services empowerment of staff, citizens or communities
a radical change of rationality	meaning that the worldview or the mental matrix of the employees of an organization is shifting		involving of private or voluntary sector empowerment of staff, citizens or communities
Source:Own compilation according to Borins (2001, 2006), Halvorsen et. al (2005), Windrum (2008).
Halvorsen et.al (2005) state that there are three views on innovations. According to degree of novelty, there are radical or incremental innovations. Radical innovation has a high degree of novelty and incremental innovation improves already existing products, services or processes. Concerning the initiator of innovation, we distinguish top - down or bottom - up innovations. In the case of public sector, 'bottom' means public employees, civil servants,
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 87
Viera Kozáková
mid-level policy makers. The third category distinguishes needs-led and efficiency-led innovation. It considers, whether the innovation process has been initiated to solve a specific problem or to make already existing public goods, services or procedures more efficient.
Another European project, called PUBLIN has been executed under EU's Fifth Framework and concerned simultaneously nine countries, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom during 2003-2005. The project explored the nature of innovation in social and health services, based on quantitative and qualitative methods. For this article it is important to know the nature of variables (Table 3) for better understanding of what should be done for stimulating innovation in public sector operation. Variables in PUBLIN project are similar, but more detailed than in the previous project (European Smart Cities). Different is public sector innovation and image (prestige) of public sector. As we can see in the table 3, the term innovation is intertwined with creativity. Creativity and innovation are often considered as terms with the same or similar meaning, but creativity is not the same as innovation. While creativity brings original ideas, innovation can also be understood when something is used according to some pattern, model or an example.
Table 3: Measures and variables of PUBLIN project (innovation in public sector)
Measures/variables	refers to: (description of variable)
Public sector innovation (INNOV)	entrepreneurial actions, creativity, flexibility, a willingness to adopt new ideas, and the initiation of original enterprises to improve people' s services
Responsiveness (RES)	the accuracy and speed of public sector reaction to citizens' demands
Professionalism (PROF)	the professionalism and quality of public personnel as perceived by citizens
Organizational Politics (OP)	the level of political considerations in administrative work and decision- making as perceived by citizens
Leadership and vision (LV)	general views about the quality and vision of leading administrative groups, managers, and senior bureaucrats
Ethics and morality (EM)	attitudes about the ethics, morality, and fairness of civil servants
Trust in government and public administration (TRUST)	the level of citizens' confidence in state authorities and administrative branches
Citizens' satisfaction (SAT)	citizens' satisfaction with groups of institutions and organizations that deliver various services (the public social/health sector, the public educational system, police, the public transportation system, welfare and social security, and employment services
Public sector image (IMAGE)	the reputation and prestige of public bureaucracies in the eyes of citizens
Source: Own compilation according to Vigoda-Gadot et al. (2008).
88 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
2.3 Creative Governance
Nowadays, the governance needs to solve increasingly complex societal problems. Indeed, it is the creativity that allows public organizations to be responsive and to develop new and better ways of serving citizens and using resources wisely. According to Dimock (in Denhardt 2013), "creativity is perhaps the most important concept in public administration". On the one hand, there is no single, commonly accepted definition of creativity. On the other hand, the creativity is generally accepted as the major asset and critical input for developing not only private sector, but also public sector. Creativity is a term which is described as "any form of action that leads to results that are novel, useful, and predictable" (Boone & Hollingsworth in Denhardt, 2013, p. 61). Similarly, Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin (1993) indicated that creativity can be viewed as the development of a valuable and useful new product, service, process, or procedure by people working together in a complex social system.
It may seem that creativity has restrictions in public sector due to legal, political, economical and other circumstances, but there are different types of creativity, all of which can help organizations in public sector to solve problems and work better. According to Hollingsworth (1989 in Denhardt 2013) there are four types of creative process as options of involving creativity in public sector:
1.	Innovation sees the obvious before anyone else does (e.g. some states have innovated by offering multiple services at one site such as offering kiosks in shopping malls or one-stop service centers).
2.	Synthesis combines ideas from various sources into a new whole (e.g. a city police department, a state social service agency, and the courts might create a multi-agency approach to dealing with child sexual abuse investigations and prosecutions).
3.	Extension expands an idea to a new application (e.g. many jurisdictions have taken the fast-food idea and created drive-through services such as book drops in libraries).
4.	Duplication copies a good idea from others (e.g. as cities have experimented and had success with photo-radar technologies in traffic control, other cities have learned from those experiences and followed suit).
According to mentioned definitions of creativity, stating that it brings novelty, Hollingsworth's classification of creative process in public sector can be marked as an intermediate stage between innovative and creative approach. Innovation and creativity in this classification are linked to each other.
Governance is often connected with the term bureaucracy, which is frequently perceived through features like rigid nature, inefficiency, lack of flexibility, negative attitudes to change (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2008). The reason, why
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 89
Viera Kozáková
we have mentioned relation between governance and bureaucracy, is because we see it as the main problem and barrier in good creative governance. Charles Landry (2011) stresses that there is a need to shift the negative perceptions of bureaucracy and those that work in them. He combines two incompatible concepts - creativity and bureaucracy in the idea of 'creative bureaucracy' (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Patterns of creative bureaucracy by Ch. Landry
Sharing, co-creation and openness
different forms of IT initiatives (Web 2.0, Web 3.0) to enhance, deepen, reinvent democratic processes and relationship of individuals to organisation
A shift from hierarchical to network thinking
new platforms for collaboration and partnerships between citizens, corporations and public institutions which cut cross organisational types and geographical borders
Breaking down divisions between disciplines
working across boundaries can create new joint insights the developmental, marketing, communications roles are seen as more significant as before
Increased mobility and cultural cross-fertilization
multiple perspectives on issues are emerging
issues of trust, loyalty and the role of the expert are being
considered
Creativity as a resource
to be imaginative and inventive is increasingly seen as an important asset
The rise of the new generalist
generalist understands the essence and core arguments of specialist subjects, but has the capacity to range over disciplines, is able to make connections and create synergies and develop new insight
Source: Landry (2011).
According to Charles Landry, who is the author of the concept Creative City (2011), bureaucracy is about structure, hierarchy, rules, routine and process and it is the organizational structure of larger organizations which have systematic procedures, protocols and regulations to manage activity. While bureaucracy is based on order, systems, certainty and predictability, creativity is focused on resourcefulness, imagination and flexibility. His idea of 'creative bureaucracy' is a proposed way of public sector operating.
If we compare smart, innovative and creative approach, we can see intertwining and continuity. They have a common goal which is citizen's satisfaction. Within the smart approach, public sector can reach the satisfaction mainly through transparency and participation. It means that it should be open. According to the innovative approach, citizen's satisfaction can be reached first of all by professional approach of government with characteristics like responsiveness, organizational skills, ethic and moral rules. The creative approach to achievement of citizen's satisfaction is principally based on allowing citizens
90 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
to be creative by means of participation and allowing government to create favourable environment for sharing knowledge and cooperation in various disciplines. Combination of governance's professionalism (including skills and knowledge), governance's openness (in sense of transparency and equality of opportunities) and creativity (use of new forms to solve old problems) are the main pillars of the proper functioning of the public sector at present and also the main factors that affect citizen's satisfaction through smart, innovative and creative manners (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Main Factors influencing the citizen's satisfaction
In order to achieve user (citizen) satisfaction Virant (2003, p. 80) mentions the following elements of administration service: information about the service, accessibility in terms of location and time, simplicity of order, procedure and payment, quality of personal contact, expert level and professional appearance of workers, good organisation and conditions of the premises, appropriate response to criticism, comments, suggestions and praise as well as reliability. According to Virant (ibid) user satisfaction is essentially affected by the notion of respect for the 'classical' values of public administration operation, namely the principles of legality, legal security and expectation, political neutrality and accountability of the public administration.
Inspired by outcomes of mentioned projects and theoretical models (Giffinger et al., 2007; Vigoda-Gadot et. al, 2008; Landry, 2011), we agree that the most important bureaucratic and governmental outcomes should be citizen's satisfaction, the image of the public sector and trust in governance. The way how to achieve or improve citizen's satisfaction might be crowdsourcing and its forms.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 91
Viera Kozáková
3 Crowdsourcing and its Forms in Public Sector
Crowdsourcing is the act when some tasks are transferred to an undefined large group of people or community (crowd) through an open call (Howe, 2009). Crowdfunding is understood as a subtopic of crowdsourcing. Both terms are predominantly known from private sector. The objective of crowdfunding is to finance a specific project or enterprise. Contributors are promised immaterial, material or financial rewards. The main principle is that interested users are invited to donate a certain amount for concrete projects via Internet donations. Each project has an initial target budget which should be reached within a limited time frame. If the targeted percentage of the budget is reached, the project is considered successful and can be implemented (Rothler & Wenzlaff, 2011).
The process of crowdsourcing in private sector has the following main phases: The company has a problem ^ Company presents its problem on the Internet ^ Internet crowd receives a request for finding solutions ^ The crowd submits solutions ^ The crowd votes for the best solution ^ Company rewards to winners ^ Company owns a winning solution and benefits from it.
However, crowdsourcing is also an innovative way of solving problems that can be successfully used in the public domain. Several recently launched initiatives showed that the instrument works as one of the creative ways to increase public involvement in solving common problems. This shift is certainly a good sign for the future, whereas nowadays ordinary citizens have only limited opportunities to express their views (elections every 4-5 years) to contribute to the legislative process, and give feedback on the steps taken by the government (Eviakova, 2010). The authors Eviakova (2010), Keiffer (2010) state four kinds of crowdsourcing, which might be used in public sector:
•	Crowdfunding (crowd funding various Internet projects and initiatives)
•	Crowdcreation (crowd present their own creations - logos, designs, page layouts, etc.)
•	Crowdvoting (crowd vote and provide feedback on a new product or service)
•	Crowdwisdom (crowd provide information and know-how in order to solve problems or predict future outcomes or help directly organization's strategy).
These kinds of crowdsourcing have a background in private sector view. Eggers and Hamill (2012) mention broader view of the crowdsourcing in public sector. They write about five kinds of crowdsourcing. The first one is crowd competition, when a problem with a defined solution requires creative problem-solving and a contest or prize provides incentives for participants to generate actionable solutions. The second way is crowd collaboration, when citizens combine their ideas and observations. They solve a problem on each other's insights with a degree of specificity. Crowd collaboration is
92 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
ideal for building and sharing knowledge, coordinating emergency response efforts and developing citizen-driven policy. Sometimes the government needs to harness knowledge from people who know a problem intimately. The third is crowd labour, which is focused on breaking up monumental effort into thousands of small tasks for the public, such as data validation, translation, data entry or digital archiving. The fourth kind is crowd voting which is particularly good for making simple decisions and ranking options, but not well suited for strategic-level decisions that require organizational buy-in. The last one is crowd funding as a simple way to engage the crowd. The potential of crowd funding activities goes beyond obvious applications, such as disaster-relief efforts, and can include funding start-ups and individual programs within large organizations.
If we summarize both formulated approaches (Eviakova, 2010; Keifer, 2010; Eggers & Hamill, 2012), there is the resulting framework of crowdsourcing composed of two main categories - crowdfunding and crowdcreation. Crowdcreation will consist of three forms and it is crowdvoting, because when crowd votes, its opinion is a part of decision-making. The next form is crowd wisdom (according to Eviakova, 2010 and Keffer, 2010) which is similar to the notion crowd labour (according to Eggers & Hamill, 2012). Both forms mean that the crowd with own knowledge, information, skills, ability, talent can contribute on small tasks of public sector. Based on meaning of crowd collaboration and crowd competition, we can indicate them as the ways of the last two forms above (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Categorization of crowdsourcing in public sector
Source: Own compilation according to Eviakova (2010), Keffer (2010) and Eggers & Hamill (2012).
For proper functioning, crowdsourcing has some conditions. It requires a high degree of transparency, an active and open dialogue between the parties and stakeholders, a financial compensation reflecting the market wage, as well as an Internet platform that would enable the functioning of the entire process from A to Z (Eviakova, 2010). The success of crowdsourcing efforts depends
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 93
Viera Kozáková
critically on public involvement. Citizens have to see themselves as active participants rather than individual consumers of public policies and services (Yip, 2011).
There are several ideas how to implement and use crowdsourcing in public sector (according to Eviakova, 2010):
•	crowdcreation form:
•	Create a political campaign. Political parties can launch online challenge and introduce key ideas that people want to communicate. The crowd submit proposals for the selection of the media, own graphic and pictorial creations and participate in the online voting to select the best ideas. The winners will receive a reward.
•	Crowdsourcing instead of public tenders. The use of crowdsourcing can be a less expensive and less bureaucratic method for public institutions without the threat of corruption. Selected calls can be launched on the official portal of the office, where subsequently individuals and companies will send their solutions and ideas. This strategy can help to diversify the portfolio of suppliers for selected orders, reduce overall costs and support growth of small and medium-sized enterprises.
The practical case of crowdcreation is the online idea Public Ideavibes which allows stopping making excuses or complaining, but starting to build better, stronger community (http://public.ideavibes.com/contents/about, cit. 201309-20).
•	crowdwisdom form:
•	Legislation. Government authorities can use collection of suggestions from the representative groups by different methods. One of them can be crowdsourcing which could lead to an increase in the amount of information that will better reflect the needs of the whole country.
•	Database of good practices. The governments often learn from one another. They participate in joint projects, organizing twinning schemes and exchange best practices to solve problems. Imagine that the public and people would be involved and so they might present ideas already in place elsewhere in the world. They should also be able to identify two public entities and propose a method for their cooperation, which would reflect their mutual needs.
•	Fiscal budget proposal. The government can publish initial budget proposal and ask people to send their comments or remarks to it, to vote on selected parts and even design a web simulation of budget distribution between the selected priorities: health, education, defence, social affairs, energy, justice, agriculture, transport, etc. Submitted responses must be supported by relevant arguments. (It is a combination of crowdvoting and crowdwisdom.)
94 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
The practical example of such a case is the platform Challenge.gov. U.S. government seeks innovative solutions from the public and brings the best ideas and talent together to solve mission-centric problems through this platform (https://challenge.gov/p/about, cit. 2013-09-20). It works easily, government posts challenges, citizens share them with friends and talented people find solution to the problem. Another example of crowdwisdom form is the VeleHanden project, which is a highly successful crowdsourcing scheme organised by Picturae at the request of the Amsterdam Municipal Archives. With VeleHanden, everyone can help to make the archives accessible online. Because the 'crowd' is providing the necessary metadata, the Military Registers and Population Registers, amongst others, are now being made publically available. The crowdsourcing platform can be 'hired' by national heritage institutes, and is therefore also available for other projects. (http:// picturae.com/uk/enrichment/crowdsourcing, cit. 2013-09-20). • crowdfunding form:
• Co-financing of public projects. Regional and local authorities can present fundamentally important public initiatives on the web and allow people to support them. This can be achieved in several ways: to become a sponsor, to find a sponsor, or to become a volunteer. Participants exactly know where their money goes, they have the opportunity to participate in a project in their community or fund-raise different kinds of contributions from additional sources.
As we can see, crowdsourcing operates on basic principle - involvement of crowd (citizens). In the first phase, when government starts with forms and ways of crowdsourcing, it is important to understand and to know how to motivate the crowd. Motivators are different. For someone it is enough to have a good feeling that he or she can contribute on improvement of public affairs, others need some reward (finance, prestige, etc.) reciprocally. The issue of citizen's motivation is very important and it requires special attention in academic and practical field.
Finally, we agree with Eviakova (2010) that with a variety of advantages, this method (crowdsourcing) becomes ever more popular in the world, therefore we suggest to governments to learn more about it from existing ideas and include it in the portfolio of options.
4 Conclusion
The public sector consists of various areas (health, education, culture, etc.), levels (local, regional, national), types of organizations and processes, where creativity is needed due to cross-disciplinary solutions of current globalized tasks. The governments as the main executive body of public sector need original and new solutions for socioeconomic development and sustainability. There are several challenges how to achieve it. One of them is the use and application of innovative practices and creativity. Innovation and creativity is
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 95
Viera Kozáková
no longer just the domain of the private sector. Major finding of the paper is that there are number of existing and functioning initiatives how the public sector can be creative and innovative. On the one hand, it is important to monitor, disseminate and share good practices and get inspired by them. On the other hand, it is necessary to be aware of the fact, that without citizen's involvement it is not possible to apply innovative and creative approaches in the public sector. Their creativity is the main resource with which the idea of creative public sector can develop.
Viera Kozáková is PhD student at the Department of Public Economy and Regional Development, Faculty of Economics, University of Matej Bel in Banská Bystrica. She is involved in pedagogical activities within the scope of Marketing Communication, Marketing of territory 1, Marketing of territory 2 and Marketing management. Her research activities are associated with the project VEGA,, "Theoretical - methodological bases of planning in terms of local authorities and the possibility oftheir application in the Slovak Republic", where she is involved in the secondary research focused on the theoretical definition of planning in local government. Her dissertation thesis is dedicated to the impact of creative economy on territorial development.
96 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
References
•	Borins, S. (2001). Public Management Innovation: Towards a Global Perspective. American Review of Public Administration, 31(1), 5-21.
•	Borins, S. (2006). The Challenge of Innovating in Government. Innovation series, IBM Center for Business of Government.
•	Denhardt, R. B., Denhardt, J. V., & Aristigueta, M.P. (2009). Managing_ human behavior in public and nonprofit organizations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
•	Eggers, W. D., & Hamill, R. (2012, May 23). Five Ways Crowdsourcing Can Transform the Public Sphere. Governing the States and Localities. Management Insights. Retrieved September 10, 2013, from http://www.governing.com/ columns/mgmt-insights/col-government-crowdsourdng-five-models.html
•	Eviakova, P. (2010). Kreativne vlady využivaju crowdsourcing. Good Morning Creativity [Blog about Developing creative leaders & pioneers]. Retrieved September 10, 2013, from http://www.goodmorningcreativity.com/sk/2010/ kreativne-vlady-vyuzivaju-crowdsourcing/
•	Giffinger, R., et al. (2007). Smart Cities. Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Final report. Vienna: Centre of Regional Science. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_ report.pdf
•	Halvorsen, T., Hauknes, J., Miles, I., & R0ste, R. (2005). On the differences between public and private sector innovation (Publin Report No. D9). Oslo: NIFU STEP.
•	Howe, J. (2009). Crowdsourcing. Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business. Crown Business.
•	IBM. (2010). Six easy steps to smart governance. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from https://www.attevo.com/files/4813/1680/8669/Six-Steps-to-Data-Governance-Whitepaper.pdf
•	Keifer, S. (2010, May 8). Four Types of Crowdsourcing. Outside In Marketing [blog by Steve Keifer]. Retrieved September 10, 2013, from http://outsideinmarketing.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/four-types-of-crowdsourcing/
•	Landry, Ch. (2011, June 2). The creative bureaucracy: A think piece [Blog Creative bureaucracy]. Retrieved September 8, 2013, from http:// creativebureaucracy.blogspot.sk/
•	OECD. (2011). Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG). In Government at a Glance 2011. OECD Publishing.
•	Rothler, D., & Wenzlaff, K. (2011). Crowdfunding Schemes in Europe. European Expert Network on Culture (EECN). Retrieved September 10, 2013, from http://www.eenc.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/DRothler-KWenzlaff-Crowdfunding-Schemes-in-Europe.pdf
•	Thenint, H. (2010). Mini Study 10 Innovation in the public sector. Global Review of Innovation Intelligence and Policy Studies. PRO INNO EUROPE. INNO GRIPS. Retrieved September 4, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ innovation/policy/public-sector-innovation/index_en.htm
•	Virant, G. (2003). Usmerjenost k uporabniku kot načelo delovanja javne uprave. Uprava, I(2), 67-82.
•	Vigoda-Gadot, E., Shoham, A., Schwabsky, N., & Ruvio, A. (2008). Public sector innovation for Europe: A multinational eight-country exploration of citizens' perspectives. Public Administration, 86(2), 307-329.
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 97
Viera Kozáková
•	Windrum, P. (2008). Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services. In
P. Windrum & P. Koch (Eds.), Innovation in Public Sector Services. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
•	Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
•	Yip, J. (2011). Open Government and Public Crowdsourcing in Practice. In Ethos - Issue 10, October 2011.
•	About Challenge.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2013, from https:// challenge.gov/p/about
•	About Public.IdeaVibes. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2013, from http:// public.ideavibes.com/contents/about
•	Crowdsourcing. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2013, from http://picturae. com/uk/enrichment/crowdsourcing
98 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
povzetek
INOVATIVNOST IN USTVARJALNOST V JAVNEM SEKTORJU
Ključne besede: ustvarjalnost, množično zunanje izvajanje, upravljanje, inovacija, javni sektor
Javni sektor lahko opredelimo kot pomemben del vsakega gospodarstva. Toda številne njegove značilnosti so negativne in se kažejo kot neučinkovitost, birokracija in zastarelost. Danes na kompetence, aktivnosti in postopke v javnem sektorju vpliva globalizacija, ki omogoča hitrejši medsebojni prenos informacij. Poleg slednjih so tudi nove tehnologije glavni vir transformacije javnega sektorja v pameten, inovativen in ustvarjalen sektor. Ker se zasebni sektor neprestano trudi, da bi zadovoljil potrebe strank, bi moral biti glavni cilj javnega sektorja zadovoljstvo državljanov. Ta cilj je mogoče doseči z uporabo obstoječih sodobnih pristopov, temelječih na inovativnosti in ustvarjalnosti.
Namen tega članka je z uporabo znanstvene literature najti odgovor na raziskovalno vprašanje: »Kateri so glavni dejavniki, ki vplivajo na zadovoljstvo državljanov z javnim sektorjem na pameten, inovativen in ustvarjalen način?« Članek je razdeljen na dva dela. Prvi vsebuje teoretični okvir glavnih značilnosti in kazalnikov za pameten, inovativen in ustvarjalen pristop k javnemu sektorju. Drugi del se ukvarja s primerjavo omenjenih pristopov in z rezultati v dejavnikih, ki vplivajo na zadovoljstvo državljanov. V zadnjem delu članka je opisano, da je mogoče zadovoljstvo državljanov povečati tako, da ti v javnih zadevah sodelujejo z množičnim sodelovanjem (angl. crowdsourcing) in njegovimi oblikami.
Inovativnost in ustvarjalnost nista nova pojma v procesih javnega sektorja, vendar sta od evropskega leta ustvarjalnosti 2009 postala bolj upoštevana. Ideja pametnega, inovativnega in ustvarjalnega javnega sektorja poudarja, da sta za veliko nalog javnega sektorja potrebna interdisciplinaren pristop in razumevanje. Nekatere znanstvene raziskovalne ekipe so pregledale glavne lastnosti in kazalnike pametnih, inovativnih in ustvarjalnih pristopov k javnemu sektorju, rezultat česar so bili pomembni projekti, na primer Evropska pametna mesta in Publin. Članek predstavlja pregled značilnosti teh projektov, nato pa opiše nekatere druge pristope.
Prvi raziskovani pristop k javnemu sektorju je koncept pametnega upravljanja (angl. Smart Governance). Raziskovalna skupina s treh univerz (Tehnična univerza na Dunaju, Tehnična univerza v Delftu in Univerza v Ljubljani) je opredelila tri dejavnike, ki so potrebni za pametno upravljanje, in določila devet kazalnikov, kako ga meriti. Posebna značilnost tega pristopa je razdelitev posameznih kazalnikov na lokalno in državno raven. Na podlagi analize in sinteze so glavni dejavniki pametnega upravljanja sodelovanje državljanov, zadovoljstvo z javnimi storitvami in preglednost upravljanja. Dejavnik
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 99
Viera Kozáková
sodelovanja v odločanju je sestavljen iz štirih kazalnikov: število predstavnikov v mestnem svetu na prebivalca, politična aktivnost prebivalcev, pomembnost politike za prebivalca in delež ženskih predstavnic v mestnem svetu. Dejavnik javnih in socialnih služb sestavljajo trije kazalniki: odhodki občine na prebivalca v standardu kupne moči (SKM), delež otrok v dnevnem varstvu in zadovoljstvo s kakovostjo šol. Zadnji dejavnik - preglednost upravljanja - sestavljata dva kazalnika: zadovoljstvo s preglednostjo birokracije in zadovoljstvo z bojem proti korupciji.
Pametni pristop dopolnjuje predlog družbe IBM, ki je leta 2010 pripravila kratek priročnik za javni sektor za doseganje pametnega upravljanja v šestih korakih. V njem je opisan celoten proces pametnega upravljanja organizacije od postavljanja in sporočanja ciljev ter določanja metričnih modelov in modelov za odločanje pa do merjenja rezultatov in revizije. Ta pogled vsebuje uporabne nasvete glede uresničevanja pametnih procesov in sistemov v javnem sektorju.
Pametni pristop je zelo povezan z inovativnim pristopom. Vprašanje inovativnosti v javnem sektorju se preučuje na različne načine. Najprej je treba poznati splošno taksonomijo inovativnosti in razlikovati med različnimi vrstami inovativnosti. Nato je mogoče inovativnost raziskovati v povezavi z javnim sektorjem. Inovativnost v javnem sektorju ima posebnosti, ki so lahko del sistema, procesa, javnega izdelka ali storitve. Zanje obstaja veliko definicij. Ta članek na podlagi znanstvene literature (Borins 2001, 2006; Halvorsen et. al, 2005; Windrum, 2008) poda povzetek vrst inovativnosti, njihove lastnosti in primere v javnem sektorju. Glavne vrste inovativnosti v javnem sektorju so nove ali izboljšane storitve, inovativnost v postopkih, inovativnost v administraciji ali politiki, inovativnost v sistemu, konceptna inovativnost in korenita sprememba. Izboljšanje v postopkih je vidno, ko je merljivo. Zato je v delu o inovativnem pristopu omenjen projekt Publin, ki so ga v okviru 5. okvirnega programa EU pripravili strokovnjaki iz devetih evropskih držav. Spremenljivke v projektu Publin so podobne kot v prejšnjem projektu Evropska pametna mesta, vendar so bolj podrobne. Struktura ukrepov je sestavljena iz devetih kazalnikov: inovativnosti v javnem sektorju, odzivnosti, strokovnosti, organizacijske politike, vodstva in vizije, etike in morale, zaupanja v vlado in javno upravo, zadovoljstva državljanov in podobe javnega sektorja. Kazalniki so pretežno kvalitativni, ker se nanašajo na splošne poglede in stališča različnih skupin do kakovosti javnih storitev.
V predstavljenih pristopih je vidno, da se pojem inovativnost prepleta s pojmom ustvarjalnost. Ustvarjalnost in inovativnost se pogosto štejeta kot pojma z enakim ali podobnim pomenom, vendar ustvarjalnost ni enaka inovativnosti. Medtem ko ustvarjalnost ustvarja izvirne ideje, se lahko kot inovativnost šteje tudi nekaj, kar je na primer uporabljeno v skladu z nekim vzorcem ali modelom. Del članka o ustvarjalnem pristopu k javnemu sektorju govori o glavnih definicijah o ustvarjalnosti in glavnih vrstah ustvarjalnih procesov. Ustvarjalnost kot sredstvo sodobnega javnega sektorja je glavna
100 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013
Innovation and Creativity in Public Sector
ideja Landryjevega dojemanja »ustvarjalne birokracije«. Tukaj gre pravzaprav za povezavo dveh nekompatibilnih procesov - ustvarjalnosti in birokracije. Bistvo uporabe ustvarjalnosti v javnem sektorju je ustvarjanje in povezovanje različnih področij in učenje od drugih.
S primerjavo pametnega, inovativnega in ustvarjalnega pristopa se je izkazalo, da so ti pristopi med seboj prepleteni in nepretrgano povezani. Imajo skupen cilj - zadovoljstvo državljanov. S pametnim pristopom lahko javni sektor doseže zadovoljstvo predvsem s preglednostjo in sodelovanjem državljanov. To pomeni, da mora biti odprt. Pri inovativnem pristopu je mogoče zadovoljstvo državljanov najprej doseči s strokovnim pristopom vlade, ki ima lastnosti, kot so odzivnost, organizacijske sposobnosti, etika in moralna pravila. Ustvarjalen pristop k doseganju zadovoljstva državljanov temelji na tem, da se državljanom omogoča ustvarjalnost, tako da lahko sodelujejo, vladi pa se omogoča, da ustvari ugodno okolje za deljenje znanja in sodelovanje na različnih področjih.
Kombinacija strokovnosti upravljanja (vključno z veščinami in znanjem), odprtosti upravljanja (v pomenu preglednosti in enakih možnosti) in ustvarjalnosti (uporaba novih oblik za reševanje starih problemov) je torej glavni steber pravilnega delovanja sodobnega javnega sektorja in tudi glavni dejavnik, ki vpliva na zadovoljstvo državljanov na pametne, inovativne in ustvarjalne načine.
V	zadnjem delu članka je poudarjen ustvarjalni način za doseganje zadovoljstva državljanov z njihovim dejavnim sodelovanjem, ki ga imenujemo množično sodelovanje (angl. crowdsourcing). Ta izraz prihaja iz zasebnega sektorja, kjer se večinoma uporablja njegova oblika množično financiranje (angl. crowdfunding), pri katerem se financira projekt ali podjetje. Sodelujočim so obljubljene nematerialne, materialne ali finančne nagrade. Avtorji, ki raziskujejo množično sodelovanje v javnem sektorju (Eviakova, 2010; Keffer, 2010; Eggers & Hamill, 2012), imajo različne poglede na njegove oblike. Vsem pa je skupna ugotovitev, da je množično sodelovanje inovativna oblika, ki jo je mogoče uspešno uporabiti v javnem sektorju.
V	članku sta navedeni dve glavni obliki množičnega sodelovanja v javnem sektorju: množično financiranje in množično oblikovanje idej (angl. crowdcreation). Množično financiranje deluje po podobnih načelih kot v zasebnem sektorju. Ljudje sofinancirajo javne projekte, iniciative ali programe. Množično oblikovanje idej temelji na uporabi ustvarjalnosti, znanja, informacij, veščin, sposobnosti in talenta ljudi. Po kategorizaciji oblik množičnega sodelovanja v javnem sektorju obstajajo tri vrste množičnega oblikovanja idej: množično glasovanje (crowd voting), množična modrost (angl. crowd wisdom) in množično delo (angl. crowd labour). Preprosto povedano, množično glasovanje je zbiranje mnenja množice z glasovanjem o javnih zadevah. Množična modrost pomeni, da se ideje in predlogi državljanov uporabijo za reševanje javnih problemov, pri množičnem delu pa državljani opravljajo manjša dela. Obliki množične modrosti in množičnega dela sta še množično
Mednarodna revija za javno upravo, letnik XI, št. 3-4/2013 101
Viera Kozáková
tekmovanje (angl. crowd competition) in skupno reševanje problemov (angl. crowdcollaboration). Pri obeh državljani rešujejo probleme v javnem sektorju. Pri množičnem tekmovanju so državljani stimulirani za reševanje problemov, pri skupnem reševanju problemov pa državljani delijo znanje in rešujejo problem, ker ga dobro poznajo.
Možnost interaktivnega sodelovanja državljanov v postopkih v javnem sektorju državljanom omogoča, da predstavljajo svoje ideje, izražajo mnenje o javnih dobrinah in storitvah, prispevajo informacije, znanje in izkušnje za reševanje problemov, napovedovanje prihodnjih rezultatov ali za neposredno pomoč pri strategiji organizacije. Treba je javno predstaviti prednosti, ki jih prinašajo množično sodelovanje in njegove oblike. Zainteresirane strani morajo ustvariti pregledno, finančno »zdravo« okolje z uporabo informacijske tehnologije, v katerem so državljani vključeni v javne zadeve. Motivacija za udeležbo aktivnega državljana je zelo pomembna, ker brez motivacije aktivno sodelovanje ni možno. Pri tem je treba upoštevati, da nekdo potrebuje prepoznavnost in ugled, drugi pa materialne ali finančne nagrade. V zaključku je opisanih nekajuspešnih primerov uporabe množičnega sodelovanja v javnem sektorju, z ugotovitvijo, da so množično sodelovanje in njegove oblike dobre metode za pravilno delovanje javnega sektorja v državah po svetu danes in v prihodnosti.
102 International Public Administration Review, Vol. XI, No. 3-4/2013