Local public innovation: an analysis of its perceived impacts on public performance

Abstract

This article explores public innovations implemented by local authorities, which consider them as a key means of improving their performance in response to a restrictive context. The authors thus propose to grasp the impacts of these innovations in terms of perceived performance from a global and multidimensional point of view. Based on a quantitative study conducted among French local authorities, this research first presents the results obtained from a theoretical point of view, providing insight into the multiple impacts of implementing innovations within the public sector. Then, at the managerial level, the study identifies specific impacts for each type of public innovation, the aim being to structure the innovation portfolio of public organisations.

Points for practitioners

An increasing number of innovations are being introduced in the public sector. However, the impact of these innovations on public performance is often not assessed. That is why by focusing our research on French local authorities, we guide managers both in analysing this influence by distinguishing several types of innovation and performance, and in building a portfolio of innovations in line with the internal resources of their local authority, as well as the public service provided in response to the needs of the territory.

Keywords

impacts local authorities public innovation public performance

Introduction

In a particularly restrictive context, innovation today plays a fundamental role at the international level, being very much in the spotlight of public organisations (De Vries et al., 2018). For example, innovation is heralded as a means of boosting the efficiency of public action (Damanpour and Schneider, 2006), and of improving the quality of public services (Boyne et al., 2005; Jung and Lee, 2016). Under these conditions, innovations, which are polymorphic and multidimensional in nature (De Vries et al., 2016), are deployed by local authorities seeking to adapt to changes in their environment.

However, while local public innovations may be presented today as the solution to the difficulties facing the public sector, we question here their effects in terms of public performance. The fact is that a lot of the research has focused on the dynamics and determinants of public innovations, as well as their processes of adoption and dissemination (Boyne et al., 2005; Damanpour and Schneider, 2006, 2008; Walker, 2006, 2007), but few studies specifically analyse the impacts of these innovations, or they sometimes simply address some of their benefits for public organisations (Hartley and Rashman, 2018; Torugsa and Arundel, 2016; Walker, 2006, 2007). Moreover, when they are studied, these impacts are stated in general terms (performance improvement, economic growth or organisational change), without being demonstrated or as being specific to different types of public innovation.

As this field of research is relatively unexplored in the public sector, this study thus aims to explore the perceived impacts of local public innovations in terms of local public performance. The originality of this study lies in the choice of a multidimensional approach not only to the impacts in terms of local public performance, but also to public innovation in the broad sense. This issue is addressed by means of a national quantitative study in the French context, enabling us to study the relationships between the types of innovation rolled out and the impacted dimensions of local public performance. Before doing so, the first part of this article presents the different types of local public innovations, as well as the categories of potential performance impacts identified by the literature. In the second part, we present our research methodology and then analyse and discuss the results obtained.

A research framework integrating different types of local public innovations and overall public performance

To present our analytical framework, we first discuss the different types of local public innovations. We then go on to describe local public performance and characterise its dimensions, and subsequently formalise our research model.

The different types of local public innovations

Although innovation is a complex and polymorphic concept, it can be defined – within the meaning of Damanpour and Schneider (2008), De Lancer Julnes (2008) and Rogers (2003) – as a process leading to the adoption by an organisation of new ideas, practices or behaviours. This means that for public organisations, innovation is understood as the implementation of a technical, organisational, policy or service concept that changes and improves the functioning and performance of the public sector (Damanpour et al., 2009; Gieske et al., 2019; Hartley, 2005).

Studies on innovation generally make a distinction between three main categories of public sector innovations: product/service/policy innovations; process or organisational innovations; and governance innovations (Schneider, 2007; Walker, 2006). The first of these relate to the outputs of public action. Organisational innovations relate to the modes of organisation and production of these public organisations, whereas governance innovations refer mainly to the management of relations between the public organisation and its partners in the implementation of public policies.

However, this first typology seems to us to be limited. First of all, even if organisational innovation is frequent, and despite its positive influence on organisational performance suggested by certain research (Gieske et al., 2019), it has long been considered minor and secondary by academic research. This is why we endorse the need to broaden this typology by making a distinction between organisational or structural innovations, on the one hand, and innovations in managerial techniques and processes, on the other (De Vries et al., 2016). Moreover, from our point of view, another limitation of this typology concerns the lack of analysis of innovations relating to the design and implementation of public policies. This means that in the wake of changes affecting their context, local authorities evolve by overhauling their strategy. They then seek to become more open to their environment by collaborating with other organisations and with users or citizens (Crosby et al., 2017). Finally, they also become flow and communication managers in a smart city logic (Côme et al., 2019), prompting them to implement technological innovations.

Therefore, we decided to select five types of local public innovations from the existing literature (see Table 1). Our research thus makes it possible to harness several types of public innovations and to grasp their results on local public performance.

Table 1.

The types of local public innovations.

Types of public innovations	Definition	Authors
Services	Development of new services or improvement of existing services	Schneider (2007), Walker (2006)
Organisational-structural	New structure, new organisation mode (pooling, transversality, project mode, etc.)	Schneider (2007), Walker (2006)
Organisational-practical	New managerial techniques and management practices (dashboards, cost accounting, etc.)	De Vries et al. (2016)
Technological	New information and communication technologies, digitalisation	Walker (2006, 2007)
Strategic and governance	Development of partner-based relations and processes with external actors, new way of thinking and formalising local public policies, overhaul of the economic model (pricing, partnership financing, etc.)	Hamel and Breen (2007), Hartley and Rashman (2018), Schneider (2007)

A multidimensional analysis of local public performance

Although some studies have already looked into the impacts of innovation in terms of performance, these often seem to be specific to the private sector and limit themselves to analysing the results with a purely economic-financial focus, often linked to growth (Amami et al., 2016). Moreover, studies dedicated to the public sector do not precisely analyse the results of innovations on the performance of public organisations from a multidimensional viewpoint. It therefore appears important to define performance in polysemous terms as a function of different grids and models of analysis (Guenoun, 2009).

In this sense, some authors first develop models of public performance management with a qualified economic approach. This is the case of Bouckaert and Pollitt (2004), Demeestere (2005), Gibert (1980) and Hood (1995). Alongside these first models, other studies favour a more open and partnership-based approach. This is the case for the Public Service Self-Assessment Framework or the Public Sector Scorecard (Moullin, 2006), which are of particular interest to stakeholders interested in public performance. In this sense, signing up to an integrative and multidimensional logic, we subscribe to the approach of Maurel et al. (2014: 40), who propose to define local public performance as:

the capacity of a public organisation to control its human, financial and organisational resources, in order to produce an adapted offer of public services, in terms of quality and quantity, meeting the needs of its stakeholders and generating sustainable effects with regard to its territory.

On the basis of this definition, these authors identify various characteristics of local public performance and propose five dimensions: organisational, human, financial, public service and territorial. Thus, first of all, in keeping with a more endogenous logic, the organisational dimension of public performance is characterised by the adaptation of human, financial and technical means (Bouckaert and Pollitt, 2004), as well as the adjustment of the culture and structure of the organisation to its public service role (Demeestere, 2005). The human dimension of public performance comes through in the commitment, motivation and mobilisation of staff around the strategy, as well as in the response to aspirations for well-being and personal development (Demeestere, 2005). Finally, the financial dimension of public performance is determined by the control of expenditure defined and committed in an appropriate, economical and compliant manner (Moullin, 2002), as well as by the optimisation of revenues and compliance with regulations (Hood, 1995). In this sense, several items from the literature have enabled us to measure these three endogenous dimensions of local public performance, which are detailed in Appendices 1, 2 and 3, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214.

In addition, in keeping with a more exogenous logic, the territorial dimension of public performance concerns the positioning of the local authority vis-a-vis its territory. It is characterised by the search for general interest, social justice and the regulation of economic activity (Bouckaert and Politt, 2004) through the provision of public services that meet the needs and satisfaction of citizens and the local environment (Hood, 1995). This dimension is therefore closer to the theory of public value (Moore, 2013), which considers that public action must be based on civic and democratic principles such as equity, freedom, responsiveness, transparency, participation and citizenship. Consequently, in its territorial dimension, public performance is based on reliable, accessible and transparent communication with its stakeholders on the actions undertaken and the means mobilised, as well as on the search for actions contributing to the image and attractiveness of a local authority (Borja, 2007). Second, the ‘public service’ dimension is defined as the adaptation of the quantity and quality of local public service provision to the needs of users (Gibert, 1980; Moullin, 2002).

In total, these five dimensions of local public performance will subsequently be taken up to analyse the impacts of local public innovations. Their measurement items are presented in Appendices 4 and 5, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214.

Local public innovations that generate performance

The existing academic literature also only partially addresses the links between innovation and performance. On the one hand, in the private sector, innovation is presented as the main source of sustainable competitive advantage and adaptation to a competitive and turbulent environment (Damanpour and Schneider, 2006; Jullien and Ruffieux, 2001). Similarly, some authors specifically study managerial innovation, establishing a direct relationship between the latter and the performance of the company (Besbes et al., 2013; Damanpour and Aravind, 2012; Hamel, 2006; Mol and Birkinshaw, 2006). As such, the latter is claimed to be a source of organisational change, allowing better adaptation to the environment and enabling the company to stand out from the competition better than a technological or product innovation by creating an advantage and lasting success for the organisation (Hamel, 2006). Nevertheless, these analyses are not specific to the public context, and the findings they raise mainly concern the benefits of innovations for companies.

On the other hand, in the studies specific to public organisations, this link between innovation and performance is not demonstrated. Indeed, the impacts of innovations are often studied in a general way as the main vector for improving public services (Walker, 2006) in relation to efficiency, effectiveness or economic growth. Moreover, analyses are not specific to different types of innovations (Hartley and Rashman, 2018; Torugsa and Arundel, 2016; Walker, 2006, 2007).

Therefore, in view of the limitations of existing studies, our research focuses on the impacts produced by public innovations on local public performance from a multidimensional perspective. This study, which adopts an interpretive and comprehensive approach, has an exploratory vocation insofar as the literature does not explore the link between types of innovations and dimensions of public performance. This is why our study aims to do more than simply test pre-established hypotheses; instead, it explores a general research proposition, according to which the types of public innovations have differentiated impacts on local public performance. Our research model is thus summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Research model.

A quantitative study highlighting the different impacts of territorial innovations on public performance

This second part begins by describing the approach adopted by this research. We then go on to present our descriptive quantitative results, before analysing the differentiated effects of the types of public innovations on the dimensions of local public performance. Finally, we discuss our results in the light of the existing literature.

A quantitative and global methodology

We broached the issue at hand by drawing up a national questionnaire sent to nearly 1800 French territorial managers. The survey enabled us to obtain 118 usable answers. The respondents represent each stratum of the French local administration (67 communes, 29 inter-municipal structures, 16 departments and three regions), at different scales and with different functions (54 chief executives, 23 deputy chief executives, 35 heads of departments and six elected representatives), which enables us to favour a global approach.

The questionnaire was constructed on the basis of the research model presented earlier. That is why, in addition to a descriptive section, we asked the respondents to choose an innovation and to characterise it. In a second part, the survey concerned the perception of the results of the innovation chosen by the respondents (according to a Likert scale) on each of the items making up the five dimensions of local public performance.¹

Drawing on the answers to this questionnaire, we then carried out factor analyses using the principal component analysis (PCA) extraction method on each of the dimensions of performance in order to verify these constructs and validate the measurement scales.² We then performed a score function on each dimension of performance based on the average of their items measured on a Likert scale. Thus, we obtained five new ordinal performance variables that pool the results relating to each of the items. Finally, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software, we studied the links between each type of public innovation (dummy variables) and the dimensions of local public performance identified in the literature (ordinal variables), using linear regressions. This allows us to analyse the significance of the link between each type of public innovation and the five dimensions of performance.

This study therefore focuses on the five types of local public innovation identified in the literature (see Table 1), for which 118 responses were obtained. Thus, we obtained information on 33 service innovations, such as: the creation of a health centre; the provision of town hall services on board a mobile bus; the direct transport of children from school to extracurricular activities; a one-stop shop; and a public service centre. The study also includes 39 organisational-structural innovations, such as: the creation of a multi-municipal police force; a grouping of services and premises for culture and youth; a global pooling of services; a restructuring of school sites; and the creation of a network of shared management assistants. We also have 15 responses on organisational-practical innovations, such as: a continuous improvement approach; an administration project; a charter of managerial values; and a mission to evaluate the performance of local policies. There are also 16 technological innovations that are taken into account, such as: the live capture and broadcast on the Internet of the town council; the dematerialisation of certain internal procedures; a change of computer server, with remote access to the server; and the centralised management of automatic watering. Finally, 15 strategic and governance innovations are also explored, including, for example: a territorial educational project; a skills centre set up to implement an ambitious employment/training/integration policy in the area; and a social forum bringing together project leaders, citizens and public authorities, which is being transformed into a lasting local dynamic of social innovation. The public innovations analysed are therefore varied.

Local public innovations with variable impacts

To begin our empirical analyses, our descriptive statistics focus on the impacts of public innovations in a global manner, without going into detail about the types of innovation. As such, we briefly track the results for each dimension of local public performance.

In the case of the endogenous dimensions of performance (see Appendix 6, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214), we first note a rather relative importance of the perceived impacts linked to financial performance, whether in terms of reduction in operating and investment expenditure, increase in revenue, accounting quality, results culture, or financial information. However, in this area, public innovations are seen more as contributing to economies of scale or to the development of financial management tools. On the other hand, and contrary to the financial impacts, public innovations produce multiple perceived effects on organisational or human performance. Among the organisational impacts, the most important, on average, concerns the formalisation of a global strategic project and its application in services. In addition, the respondents insist on the improvement in relations, internal communication and the evaluation of public policy performance. On the human level, the impacts also appear to be numerous. First of all, better sharing of knowledge, know-how and interpersonal skills seems to be particularly the result of public innovations, as well as staff’s sense of belonging to the organisation. Second, there is also a belief that innovations make it possible to improve staff accountability and involvement.

Then, in addition to these results, public innovations also serve to improve the impact of the local authority with regard to its territory and its users (see Appendix 7, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214). Thus, several striking results are perceived by the respondents. In terms of ‘public service’ performance, they mainly produce an improvement in the offer, with the creation of new services. They also make it possible to optimise this offer by seeking to do better with less. Finally, it appears that the innovations undertaken improve the information provided to users and result in their needs being better taken into account when it comes to creating public services. From a territorial point of view, local innovations are perceived as sources of a better image for the local authority and allow it to better project itself into the future by gaining a good grasp of the issues related to the sustainable development of its territory. Then, to a lesser extent, innovations improve the response to the socio-economic needs of the territory, as well as the consideration of the remarks and opinions formulated by users and citizens.

Overall, public innovations are perceived as generating significant effects on the overall performance of local authorities, since the vast majority of items are rated between 3 and 4 on a five-point Likert scale. Only financial performance seems to be less impacted by the innovations undertaken. The other dimensions, that is, the human, organisational, public service and territorial dimensions, are all significantly influenced by the commitment to public innovations. The next step of the study involves specifying these impacts for each of the five types of local public innovations identified in our research model.

Varied impacts of the types of innovation on the dimensions of local public performance

Beyond these initial descriptive analyses, we then use linear regressions (see Appendix 8, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/DOI: 10.1177/0020852320963214) to study the impacts of the types of public innovations (dummy variables) on the five dimensions of performance (ordinal variables obtained from a score function on the item averages). We do this by summarising the results of our regressions for the statistically significant effects at the 1% threshold (see Table 2), before breaking them down.

Table 2.

Summary of the statistically significant impacts of the types of local public innovations for the five dimensions of public performance.

Performance	Financial	Organisational	HR	Public service	Territorial
Types of innovations	Financial	Organisational	HR	Public service	Territorial
Service	.185*			.584*	.600*
Organisational-structural	.136*		.634*	.620*
Organisational-practical		.419*	.418*		.423*
Technological		.407*
Strategic and governance				.410*	.433*

Note: *Significant at the 1% threshold.

Financial performance influenced by service and organisational-structural innovations

Service innovations and organisational innovations of structures are those that have a significant and positive perceived impact on the financial performance of local authorities, though with limited weight. Indeed, respondents perceive the development of new services or the improvement of existing services, such as a health centre, a one-stop shop or a public services centre, as creating economies of scale and contributing to an improved results culture in the local authority.

However, this type of service innovation does not seem to produce positive effects on expenditure and income, or on the match between the financial means and the local political project. Moreover, innovations relating to the development of a new structure or a new mode of organisation, such as a grouping of local services, a pooling of services or the creation of an inter-municipal service, are also perceived as producing efficiency, and clearly contribute to the emergence of a culture of results in a context of generalised budgetary austerity.

Organisational performance linked to organisational-practical and technological innovations

We then looked at the organisational performance of local authorities. The perception of the latter is significantly impacted by organisational innovations oriented towards practices and tools, as well as by technological innovations. In this sense, new managerial techniques and management practices, such as the implementation of a continuous improvement approach or a managerial values charter, produce perceived impacts on the improvement of the quality of the local authority’s operating processes, contribute to the formalisation of a strategic project or improve communication. Moreover, technological innovations, which are reflected in the implementation of new information and communication technologies (ICT) and digitalisation, such as the live capture and broadcasting of the municipal council’s activities on the Internet or the dematerialisation of internal procedures, for example, are also perceived as creating organisational performance. In particular, they can improve communication and strengthen information systems. Nevertheless, it should be noted that we were only able to collect about 15 innovations for each of these two types.

Human performance dependent on organisational-structural and organisational-practical innovations

Our results highlight a link between local public human performance and organisational innovations, whether structural or practical. Indeed, these two types of public innovations, linked to new modes of operation and organisation, or to new managerial techniques and management tools, are perceived as creating a better sharing of knowledge, know-how and interpersonal skills, as well as a development of the organisational culture and climate through the improvement of relations between staff. More specifically, organisational-practical innovations are seen as having an impact on organisational justice, in particular, by helping to improve the alignment of remuneration with staff activities and responsibilities.

Public service performance linked to service, organisational-structural, strategic and governance innovations

Exogenously, public service performance is the result of service innovations, organisational-structural innovations and innovations in strategy and governance. First, according to the respondents’ perceptions, a new public service, or the improvement of an existing service, leads to a better ethic with regards to identical access to services in the territory, reduced response times to user requests, the modernisation of facilities and the optimisation of the service offer. In addition, organisational innovations that involve new structures and modes of organisation are seen as a source of modernisation of public service facilities while, at the same time, improving users’ confidence in the local authority. Finally, our results point out the effects on public service performance of strategic and governance innovations, such as the holding of a social forum bringing together project leaders, citizens and public authorities, or a multi-actor educational project for a territory. These latter innovations, linked to the development of relations and partnership processes, or to the way in which local public policies are considered and formalised, are seen as leading to significant improvements in response times and in the confidence of users in the local authority. They can also lead to an optimisation of the supply of public services in a context of increased need for collaboration between actors working for the same local policy.

Territorial performance impacted by service, organisational-practical, strategic and governance innovations

Finally, several types of public innovations are perceived as having a significant impact on the territorial performance of local authorities. Thus, service innovations enable the authority to attract agents and skills, to better meet the socio-economic needs of the territory, and to improve the organisation’s societal responsibility. On the other hand, according to the respondents’ perceptions, organisational-practical innovations lead to a better image of the local authority. Finally, strategic and governance innovations are the source of many territorial impacts, contributing to a better knowledge and attractiveness of the general public, and improving the image of the local authority. They also greatly contribute to a better response to socio-economic needs and make it possible to improve behaviours that are compatible with the principles of societal responsibility of organisations.

Discussion: summary and implications of the study

Our results allow us to observe the presence of multiple and specific impacts linked to the types of public innovations, characterising the willingness of local authorities to respond to the complexity of their actions, both internally by improving their operating methods, and externally in relation to their stakeholders and their environment. From this point of view, our study echoes previous research on the need to take into account overall performance, defined as the aggregation of economic, social and societal performance (Capron and Quairel, 2006; Maurel et al., 2014; Reynaud, 2003). Moreover, without rejecting the existence of possible financial impacts, and despite the existence of a context of strong budgetary tensions, our results highlight the much more diversified nature of the types of effects perceived when local authorities implement innovations. Furthermore, by focusing on the differentiated impacts of the types of public innovations on several dimensions of local performance, our work generates new results compared to previous research (Arundel et al., 2015; Damanpour and Schneider, 2006; Dermircioglu and Audretsch, 2017; Torugsa and Arundel, 2016), which addresses innovation globally and uniformly. Thus, in an exploratory approach, we confirm and refine our research proposal as the types of public innovations have positive and differentiated impacts on the performance dimensions of local public organisations. Therefore, our results show common impacts, as well as specific impacts for certain types of public innovations.

First of all, service innovations have a perceived positive impact on financial performance, as well as on territorial and public service performance. Indeed, according to the respondents, these innovations are implemented in order to better meet the needs of the population, as well as to produce a positive impact on the territory within the meaning of the dual production function highlighted by Gibert (1986). Moreover, only organisational-structural innovations are also perceived as creating financial performance. They are also analysed as generating positive effects on the human level and on the public service. As for organisational-practical innovations, they generate positive effects on the human level, as well as on organisational and territorial performance. Technological innovations, on the other hand, are seen as a source of impact on the organisation only. Thus, our results are similar to those of Han et al. (2017), who also highlight the relatively weak effects of technological innovation in the private sector. Also, it seems that the latter can be coupled with another type of innovation by constituting support for innovations of a service-oriented or organisational and managerial nature. Finally, strategic and governance innovations present results on the exogenous dimensions of performance with regard to the public service and the positioning of the local authority with regard to its territory.

More generally, this study argues for the consideration of the multiple impacts of different types of public innovations, in line with previous literature on the differential effects of innovations and their links with performance (Damanpour and Gopalakrishanan, 1999; Entorf and Pohlmeier, 1990; Greenan and Guellec, 2000; Han et al., 2017). In addition, this research builds on the results of Walker (2006) on improving public services by specifying the types of potential contribution according to the innovations undertaken, such as optimisation or a wider range of public services, or improved information for users. Finally, our results go beyond the limits of previous work by grasping public performance beyond an internal and service-related logic. In particular, we show that several innovations implemented by local authorities have an impact on the territory and the local environment within the meaning of Gibert (1986).

Moreover, this study, which points out the multiple and specific impacts of public innovations, is in line with the conclusions of Liouville (2006) on the need for an organisation to have a ‘portfolio of innovations’, enabling it to optimise its innovation management. Indeed, several works have focused on this notion and its interests. An innovation portfolio would thus make it possible to: prioritise projects; allocate and better distribute resources to the various innovations; globally optimise innovations under budgetary constraints; improve their evaluation within a learning logic; give greater visibility to innovations; develop exchanges between project leaders; and better link innovations and the organisation’s strategy (Bayart et al., 2000; Cooper et al., 1999; Fernez-Walch et al., 2006; Lenfle and Midler, 2002). This is why, in the light of our results, we raise the need for local authorities to set up an innovation strategy, aimed at better combining them in order to better respond to the constraints of their environments. Moreover, piggybacking innovations makes it possible to link up and transfer their learning outcomes (Lenfle and Midler, 2002). This research further ties in with the public adaptation of the typology of innovation projects developed by Lenfle and Midler (2002). In this way, innovations can be classified according to the strategic axis to which they belong, as well as according to the type of solution and impact on public performance that they propose.

Conclusion

Until now, very little research has comprehensively addressed the full range of local public innovations and their influences on multidimensional performance. This is why, by shedding light on the characteristics of the impacts produced by each type of public innovation, this exploratory research is of theoretical interest.

In addition, at the managerial level, different recommendations can be put forward depending on the situation or the expected results in order to guide local authorities in the constitution of their innovation strategy. Consequently, depending on the objective pursued, whether it is global (endogenous or exogenous) or more specific, local authorities may be encouraged to adopt certain types of innovation. This means that if certain dimensions of local performance prove to be insufficient, local authorities could then better cover them by deploying innovations in response to them. Finally, public organisations often face methodological obstacles in the implementation of innovations, particularly in the absence of evaluation and assessment (Bartoli and Blatrix, 2015). Indeed, they encounter difficulties in capitalising on and learning from past changes. This is why our approach could enable local authorities to benefit from a framework for analysing the impacts of innovations, and thus change the structuring of their ‘innovation portfolio’ (Liouville, 2006).

Beyond these scientific and managerial interests, however, this study has certain limitations. First, the sample is approached in a global manner. It would therefore be interesting to consider differences between the types of local authorities. Second, this research gives only an initial idea of the complex phenomenon of the study of the results of public innovations, approached through the perception of local actors. This is why the perceived impacts should be complemented by more in-depth case studies, allowing us to build on these first results. Although allowing the integration of several dimensions of public performance, our measurement remains perceptual and potentially biased. Therefore, going forward, it could also be interesting to combine it with complementary quantitative indicators. Moreover, political actors only participated to a limited extent in the survey. However, their perceptions of the impacts of the innovations, especially on the exogenous level, appear to be in need of further investigation. In addition, we have focused here on the links between the type of innovation and local public performance. However, it would also be interesting to include certain moderating variables in this analysis, such as contextual variables or the process of adoption and implementation of these innovations. This is why, going forward, this research will focus on the results of the innovations, analysed in relation to the terms and conditions of their implementation process, as recommended by Liouville (2006). This would make it possible to grasp and explore the interactions and complementarities likely to exist between the types of innovations (Favoreu et al., 2018), and thus to better understand the sequential results of public innovations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yoann Queyroi

Notes

Yoann Queyroi, PhD in Management Sciences, is a senior lecturer in management sciences at the National University Institute Champollion, France. He is a member of the Laboratoire Gouvernance et Contrôle Organisationnel (LGCO). His research focuses on local public performance management and public innovation. He also teaches performance, strategy, innovation and research.

David Carassus, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour (UPPA)/Institut d’Administration des Entreprises (IAE)/Observatoire du PiloTage et de l’Innovation Managériale locAle (OPTIMA) Chair, is a professor at the Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, France. He holds a PhD in Management Sciences. He supervises the research of a dozen PhD students. His main research interests cover the evaluation of public policies and the management of local institutions.

Christophe Maurel is a Professor at Angers University, France. He holds a PhD in Management Sciences. He supervises the research of PhD students and his research focuses on the management of local authorities, management control and the evaluation of public policies.

Christophe Favoreu is a Professor of Strategy at TBS Business School, France. He holds a PhD in Strategic Management. His main research interests cover performance management, strategic management and public innovation.

Pierre Marin, PhD in Management Sciences, is a senior lecturer in management sciences at the University of Pau and Pays de l’Adour and at the Institut d’Administration des Entreprises (IAE), France. He is Deputy Director of the Management School and in charge of educational innovation and business relations. He teaches mainly project management and managerial innovation. He is responsible for an international master’s degree. He is a member of the Centre de Recherches et d’Etudes en Gestion (CREG) and the Observatoire du PiloTage et de l’Innovation Managériale locAle (OPTIMA) Chair. His research, which has been the subject of several national and international publications, focuses on public management in local authorities, public performance and public innovation.

References

Amami

Saadaoui

Maalej

(2016) L’innovation managériale et la performance financière: exploration dans le contexte tunisien. Paper presenterd at the XXVème Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique, Hammamet, 30 May–1 June.

Arundel

Casali

Hollanders

(2015) How European public sector agencies innovate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods. Research Policy 44(7): 1271–1282.

Bartoli

Blatrix

(2015) Management dans les organisations publiques (4th edn). Paris: Dunod.

Bayart

Bonhomme

Midler

(2000) Management tools for R&D project portfolios in complex organisations: The case of an international pharmaceutical firm. In: Benghozi

Charue-Duboc

Midler

(eds) Innovation Based Competition and Design Systems Dynamics. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 135–158.

Besbes

Aliouat

Gharbi

(2013) L’impact de l’innovation managériale sur la performance. Rôle de l’orientation marché et de l’apprentissage organisationnel. Revue française de gestion 6(235): 161–174.

Borja

(2007) L’attractivité territoriale: les conditions locales de la réussite globale. In: Actes des seminaries (ed) L’attractivité des territoires: regards croisés. Paris: PUCA, pp. 37–40.

Bouckaert

Pollitt

(2004) Evaluating Public Management Reforms: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boyne

Law

Walker

, et al. (2005) Explaining the adoption of innovation: An empirical analysis of public management reform. Environment and Planning: Government and Policy 23(3): 419–435.

Capron M and Quairel F (2006) Évaluer les stratégies de développement durable des entreprises: l’utopie mobilisatrice de la performance globale. Revue de l’organisation responsable 1(1): 5–17.

10.

Côme

Magne

Steyer

(2019) Être ou ne pas être une smart city: une étude empirique des innovations valorisées sur le site web des villes. Gestion et Management Public 7(2): 73‑101 .

11.

Cooper

Edgett

Kleinschmidt

(1999) New product portfolio management: Practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16(4): 333–351.

12.

Crosby

Hart

Torfing

(2017) Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review 19(5): 655–669.

13.

Damanpour

Aravind

(2012) Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review 8(2): 423–454.

14.

Damanpour

Gopalakrishanan

(1999) Organizational adaptation and innovation: The dynamics of adopting innovation types. In: Brockhoff

Chakrabarti

Hauschild

(eds) The Dynamics of Innovation. Berlin: Springer, pp. 57–80.

15.

Damanpour

Schneider

(2006) Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management 17: 215–236.

16.

Damanpour

Schneider

(2008) Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(3): 495–522.

17.

Damanpour

Walker

Avellaneda

(2009) Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organization. Journal of Management Studies 46(4): 650–675.

18.

De Lancer Julnes

(2008) Performance-based management systems – Effective implementation and maintenance. Public Administration and Public Policy. CRC Press, 288 pp.

19.

Demeestere

(2005) Le Contrôle de gestion dans le secteur public (2nd edn). Paris: LGDJ.

20.

Dermircioglu

Audretsch

(2017) Conditions for innovations in public sector organizations. Research Policy 46(2): 1681–1691.

21.

De Vries

Bekkers

Tummers

(2016) Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration 94(1): 146–166.

22.

De Vries

Tummers

Bekkers

(2018) A stakeholder perspective on public sector innovation: Why position matters. International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(2): 269–287.

23.

Entorf

Pohlmeier

(1990) Employment, innovation and export activity: Evidence from firm-level data. In: Florens

Ivaldi

Laffont

, et al. (eds) Microeconometrics: Surveys and Applications. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 394–415.

24.

Favoreu C, Maurel C, Carassus D, et al. (2018) Influence and complementarity of follow-on managerial innovations within a public organization. Public Organization Review 19(3): 345–365.

25.

Fernez-Walch

Gidel

Romon

(2006) Le portefeuille de projets d’innovation: Objets de gestion et d’organisation. Revue française de gestion 165(6): 87–103.

26.

Gibert

(1980) Le contrôle de gestion dans les organisations publiques. Paris: Les éditions d’organisations.

27.

Gibert

(1986) Management de la puissance publique. Politiques et Management Public 4(2): 89–123.

28.

Gieske

Van Meerkerk

Van Buuren

(2019) The impact of innovation and optimization on public sector performance. Testing the contribution of connective, ambidextrous and learning capabilities. Public Performance & Management Review 42(2): 432–460.

29.

Greenan

Guellec

(2000) Technological innovation and employment reallocation. Labour 14(4): 547–590.

30.

Guenoun

(2009) Le management de la performance publique locale, étude de l’utilisation des outils de gestion dans deux organisations intercommunales. PhD thesis, Université Paul Cézanne, France.

31.

Hamel

(2006) The why, what and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review 84(2): 72–84.

32.

Hamel

Breen

(2007) The Future of Management. Paris: Vuibert.

33.

Han

Kwon

Chung

, et al. (2017) The effects of the innovation types of venture firms and government support on firm performance and new job creation: Evidence from South Korea. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 16(2): 1–14.

34.

Hartley

(2005) Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money and Management 25(1): 27–34.

35.

Hartley

Rashman

(2018) Innovation and inter-organizational learning in the context of public service reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(2): 231–248.

36.

Hood

(1995) Contemporary public management: A new global paradigm? Public Policy and Administration 10(2): 104–117.

37.

Jullien

Ruffieux

(2001) Innovation, avantages concurrentiels et concurrence: Une analyse expérimentale des incitations à innover et de l’efficacité des marchés en présence de chocs endogènes. Revue d’économie politique 111(1): 121–149.

38.

Jung

Lee

(2016) Organizational climate leadership, organizational size and aspiration for innovation in government agencies. Public Performance & Management Review 39(4): 757–782.

39.

Lenfle

Midler

(2002) Stratégie d’innovation et organisation de la conception dans les entreprises amont. Revue Française de Gestion 28(140): 89–105.

40.

Liouville

(2006) Degré d’innovation et performances des entreprises: limites des recherches actuelles et nouvelles perspectives pour le management de l’innovation. Paper presented at the XVème Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique, Annecy, Genève, 13–16 June.

41.

Maurel

Carassus

Favoreu

, et al. (2014) The characterization and definition of public performance: An application to local government authorities. Gestion et Management Public 2(3): 23–44.

42.

Mol

Birkinshaw

(2006) Against the flow: Reaping the reward of management innovation. European Business Forum, 27(Winter): 24–29.

43.

Moore

(2013) Recognizing Public Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44.

Moullin

(2002) Delivering Excellence in Health and Social Care. Buckingham: Open University Press.

45.

Moullin

(2006) The design of an alternative Balanced Scorecard framework for public and voluntary organizations. Perspectives on Performance 5(1): 10–12.

46.

Reynaud

(2003) Développement durable et entreprise: vers une relation symbiotique. Paper presented at the 1ère Journée AIMS sur le Développement durable, May, Angers.

47.

Rogers

(2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn). New York, NY: Free Press.

48.

Schneider

(2007) Do attributes of innovative administrative practices influence their adoption? An exploratory study of US local government. Public Performance & Management Review 30(4): 590–614.

49.

Torugsa

Arundel

(2016) Complexity of innovation in the public sector: A workgroup-level analysis of related factors and outcomes. Public Management Review 18(3): 392–416.

50.

Walker

(2006) Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration 84(2): 311–335.

51.

Walker

(2007) An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Toward a configuration frameworks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2): 591–615.