Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 07

February/March 2019 // Canadian Government Executive / 19 INNOVATION T here is an interesting paradox playing out with the public sec- tor innovation efforts which par- allels similar efforts in Australia. he Australian Public Service Commis- sion “State of the Service” 2015 report is a snapshot of the current understanding of innovation methodologies at its federal agencies. Two findings are worthy of note: • “… agencies reported that practices to en- courage and support innovation were in use across part of the organization,” and • “… most agencies had not yet identified the knowledge and skills that their work- force needed to support innovation.” What is the current state of innovation in Canada? The OECD Observatory of Pub- lic Sector Innovation (OPSI) reviewed our approach to innovation. It called our ap- proach “relatively fragmented,” which was an improvement from the preliminary report that called it “relatively immature.” This report made some observations: • there is no overriding sense of what the intent driving the system is; • there is no overall picture of the innova- tion system, what it includes, what it in- volves, what is happening, nor how it is performing; • the expected roles to be played by indi- viduals and organisations is not clear; • the behaviours and norms for support- ing innovation are not well established or explicit; and • there is no shared sense across the sys- tem of what needs to happen next. For innovation to happen in our organiza- tions, they must build capacity of staff to innovate as part of an overall innovation ecosystem. It’s clear that, like Australia, our agencies and departments are not de- fining the innovation skills and knowledge staff should have. At a minimum, those at the top of government must define the core definitions and knowledge to ensure a consistent understanding across all de- partments and agencies. Insights into Skills for Managing Ideas Creativity expert Edward de Bono offers a useful perspective on training in this context: “The English language does not distinguish between idea creativity and artistic creativity. Because of this failure of language, people are reluctant to ac- cept that idea creativity is a learnable skill. Once we have separated idea creativity from artistic creativity, then we can set about learning, and develop the skills of learning for new ideas.” His notion of learning for new ideas is insightful. If we focus on what people actu- ally do when they “innovate” – from prac- tice, research, and observation – they are solving problems. Some problems could reflect national concerns while others may focus on improving the flow of mail inside a department. All need a steady flow of quality ideas to achieve results. Research tells us that problem solving involves three phases: 1. Problem-finding and discovery skills – people do not solve problems until a situation is established as a problem worth solving. Skills help to find prob- lems and processes to solve them. 2. Problem-solving skills – this is often supported by creativity tools or prob- lem-solving processes such as brain- storming or design thinking. Engineers and scientists may use other models to solve technical challenges. 3. Solution-implementation skills – Inno- vation can’t happen until ideas are put into action and they create value for stakeholders. Realistically, most ideas simply improve the situation. For innovation to happen in our organizations, they must build capacity of staff to innovate as part of an overall innovation ecosystem. It’s clear that, like Australia, our agencies and departments are not defining the innovation skills and knowledge staff should have.