Canadian Government Executive - Volume 25 - Issue 03

8 / Canadian Government Executive // August/September 2019 INNOVATION By Christine Minas A s the innovation discourse ramped up in early 2016, so too did efforts to incorporate it across functions in the fed- eral government. Trying new ways to solve problems was not original; yet, the emphasis and vigour with which this approach was implemented was sig- nificant. With the creation of labs and hubs came the expectation that experi- menting with different approaches to ad- dress challenges would lead to improved results. Within this context the evaluation function was seen as providing a compre- hensive view of program effectiveness, but all too often, in a less than agile fashion. Recognizing this tension, I sought to de- velop a framework for advancing results. Governments around theworld are look- ing to innovation in order to serve citizens better and also, to engage public servants. In Canada, examples of these approaches at the federal level include Blueprint 2020 and Destination 2020. Along with these ef- forts has been a focus on experimentation as an approach and methodology, often located physically within newly created innovation labs and hubs. Taking a more systemic approach, the 2016 experimen- tation directive for deputy heads stated organizations devote a percentage of pro- gram funds to experimenting with new approaches. Defining Innovation As this discourse developed, so too did varying definitions and interpretations of innovation. Definitions of innovation high- lighted creating something new, improv- ing technology or process, or adapting a tried and true idea to a new context. This could include turning an idea into a new mation and skills needed to conduct Box 1 work are well-known and predictable. The second box looks back on the past in order to recognize and let go of practices that did not work, attitudes that held peo- ple back, practices that were not relevant to the context – as such, this is seen as the destruction phase. This is the home of les- sons learned and post-mortem exercises. Taking the time to reflect and adjust is part of the work carried out in Box 2. The third box is future-focused and is con- sidered to be where creation takes place. In this box breakthroughs are realized; where ideas are converted to new processes and products that are fundamentally different. Experimentation and testing of assump- tions is part of Box 3 work. The data and skills needed to interpret nuanced trends found in the third box are not fully devel- oped and less predictable. In the three box framework the present, past and future occur at the same time; however, the emphasis and effort invested by organizations and individuals within those structures tend to be found in the first box. That is, the day-to-day work of getting things done in linear ways, such as follow- ing a specific process and adjusting in mi- nor ways to improve, occupies most of the organization’s time and effort. The regular measurement of these activities is often found in the area of performance measure- ment where program or operational pro- cesses are well-known and agreed-upon indicators have been developed for moni- toring and reporting. Standard tools in- clude scorecards, dashboards, etc. The 2016 Policy on Results and its related Directive requires that Program Information Pro- files (formerly performance measurement frameworks) include indicators and related or revised solution that adds value from both the organization’s and client’s per- spectives. Innovation approaches drew on design-thinking, technological intensifica- tion, and formats such as jams and hack-a- thons. There was an overall pervasiveness of the term. With so many interpretations of what innovation could be, it was difficult to determine if innovation was a process or a product and more importantly, how did the concept of improvement fit in. The question of how an organization or function is in- novative and innovating started to surface. And the related question of, how is my or- ganization being innovative and how do we show this? The Three Box Framework for Results As the tempo of this discussion sped up in spring 2016, I was attending the Associa- tion of Professional Executives of the Pub- lic Service (APEX) symposium entitled, Leadership Action for Excellence, Inno- vation and Health. That is where I heard Vijay Govindarajan’s strategy for leading innovation as articulated in his book The Three Box Solution . As I listened to him frame innovation vis-à-vis preservation (present), destruction (past), and creation (future), I could not help but think how this approach applied to results within the Government of Canada. The three boxes are metaphors for ac- tivities and outcomes in complex organi- zations. The first box represents the pres- ent and preservation: this is where work revolves around managing current priori- ties, innovation is linear (or incremental), there is a focus on efficiency (improve processes/products), and measures are in place to ensure good operations. The infor- to advance results Situating innovation