This chapter presents the OECD Innovative Capacity Framework (ICF), outlines the assessment methodology, summarises the main findings for Bulgaria and compares its innovative capacity with other countries.
Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Public Sector of Bulgaria
OECD Public Governance Reviews
Abstract
This chapter introduces the OECD Innovative Capacity Framework (ICF), outlines the assessment methodology, summarises the main findings for Bulgaria, and compares its innovative capacity with that of other countries.
The OECD has been working on public sector innovation (PSI) capacity since 2017. Its work paved the way for the OECD Declaration on Public Sector Innovation in 2019 [OECD/LEGAL/0450], in which countries committed to investing in and systematically developing governments’ innovative capacity to design policies, deliver services and address challenges in effective and impactful ways.
Since then, OECD Member countries have established processes to institutionalise and professionalise innovation. To support this work, the OECD refined its methodology for public sector innovative capacity assessments via country studies of differing scales and scopes, including Canada (OECD, 2018[1]), Brazil (OECD, 2019[2]), Denmark (OECD, 2021[3]), Romania (OECD, 2023[4]), and Latvia (OECD, 2023[5]).
Based on the learning provided during previous assessments, the OECD Public Sector Innovative Capacity Framework (ICF) has now matured, enabling a robust analysis of factors influencing innovation on the individual, organisational and system levels described below. Together, these factors can help governments improve investments and address gaps and barriers to public sector innovation. Ultimately, increased public sector innovative capacity means that governments are better able to meet the needs of the public.
Innovative capacity refers to the public sector’s systemic ability to work in innovative ways and improve outcomes such as trust in government, service satisfaction, and economic opportunities (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[6]). Public sector innovation is influenced by various internal and external factors, such as political influences, institutional collaboration, accountability frameworks, audit practices, skills, leadership, performance management, monitoring and evaluation approaches, among others. The OECD’s work on innovative capacity has systemically identified these factors.
The OECD Innovative Capacity Framework (ICF) is a tool to help governments decide how to invest and foster innovation to accomplish goals and improve outcomes. The ICF examines public sector systems, acknowledging the context-specific nature of innovation while promoting comparability across different countries. The ICF’s primary objective is to understand better the factors influencing innovation within the public sector and explore how they can be utilised to ensure that innovative practices and innovations are effective and sustained in achieving their intended objectives.
The Framework explores factors across four dimensions at the individual level (including team dynamics), organisational level (within the system), and whole system-level perspectives (including broader environmental influences) (see Figure 2.1). The overarching questions that underpin each of these dimensions are:
Purpose: What is driving the intent to innovate?
Potential: What determines whether innovative efforts are attempted?
Capacity: What is needed to carry out innovative efforts and integrate them into everyday practice?
Impact: How is the impact of innovative efforts understood and informing future practice?
The Framework explores diverse factors across four dimensions: purpose, potential, capacity, and impact. The analysis encompasses three levels, including individual, organisations, and the public sector system.
Source: (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[6])
Based on this framework, the methodology for OECD Innovative Capacity Assessments has evolved to encompass a mixture of qualitative and quantitative analysis methods (see Annex 2.A). In Bulgaria, a three-level survey was carried out along with standard desktop analysis, workshops, and interviews. The survey included a questionnaire for a central government representative, a questionnaire for heads of public sector organisations, and a questionnaire for all public servants (see details in Box 2.1).
This report uses quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, drawing on primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include interviews, workshops, and a survey, while secondary sources come from a literature review. The data collection and analysis by research method are described as follows:
Desktop review: A desktop literature review analysis was carried out in Bulgarian and English, encompassing government publications, academic literature, and other grey sources.
Qualitative analysis: A qualitative analysis of information from workshops and semi-structured interviews was carried out in Bulgarian and English.
4 Workshops targeted public servants, part of Bulgaria’s Innovation Network, technical-level professionals and middle managers, and executive directors of public organisations for both fact-finding and findings validation activities.
25 semi-structured interviews targeted representatives from the State Administration, academia, civil society, and the private sector.
Statistical analysis: Descriptive and predictive analyses used data from the OECD’s Bulgaria Innovative Capacity Survey. The survey was collected in Bulgarian in April 2024 and later translated into English using artificial intelligence. The survey encompassed a three-level survey, including 3,483 completed responses:
Level 1 (L1): Survey to a central government representative - 1 completed response.
Level 2 (L2): Survey to heads of public sector organisations - 116 completed responses.
Level 3 (L3): Survey to all public servants - 3,633 completed responses.
Source: OECD.
The public sector innovation survey data collected in Bulgaria was analysed based on different groups, including categories in staff levels, governance levels and policy sectors, to showcase the differences in innovation enablers and barriers of the aforementioned. Box 2.2 describes the overall data analysis and gives guidance on how to interpret survey data presented in the rest of the report.
This table summarises the level of analysis included in Bulgaria's innovative capacity survey. The results are shown with three primary data points:
Bulgaria: Representing the average among survey respondents.
Innovators: Representing the average among survey respondents who indicated having been involved in the design or implementation of an innovation in the last two years, according to the definition: “something new or novel to context, implemented, and aimed at achieving impact.”
Not-Innovators: Representing the average amongst those who have indicated that they have not been involved in the design or implementation of innovations over the last two years.
The survey results are also often presented with a distinction between staff levels, governance levels, and policy sectors.
Moreover, when relevant, individuals’ characteristics variables, such as tenure, age, and gender, have been included in analyses.
The note section below each graph details the survey-level data sources and questions.
Source: OECD.
This section reviews the assessment of the Bulgarian State Administration's innovative capacity using the OECD Innovative Capacity Framework. Key findings are presented in Table 2.1, detailing factors that drive the intent to innovate (purpose), the enabling environment determining the existence of these innovative efforts (potential), the necessary capacity for implementing and embedding innovative practices (capacity), and the understanding of their impact on Bulgaria’s Administration (impact). Chapter 3 expands on those findings and offers relevant recommendations and best practices from OECD countries and beyond.
These insights rely primarily on descriptive statistics and data triangulated from various sources (see Box 2.1). Additionally, this section draws on predictive analysis, looking at the innovative capacity factors that causally affect Bulgaria’s innovative outputs (see Box 2.3).
This table summarises key findings on Bulgaria’s innovative capacity assessment across purpose, potential, capacity, and impact at the individual, organisational, and system levels.
Source: (OECD, 2024[7]).
Bulgaria's State Administration is at an emerging stage of fostering public sector innovation. As shown in Figure 2.2, each dimension of the Innovative Capacity Framework is scored from emerging to optimising:
Purpose is at a developing stage: Public sector innovation exists but is primarily driven by senior leadership and individual motivations rather than systemic needs. Public sector innovation is not connected with government priority agendas (OECD, 2024[7]).
Potential is at an emerging stage: Limited collaboration, low perception of permission to innovate, and constrained resources and funding hinder the potential for innovation in the public sector (OECD, 2024[7]).
Capacity is at a developing stage: There is a lack of motivation to innovate. Skills and competencies are generally absent across the administration. Institutional support for public sector innovation exists but has a limited scope and is underdeveloped (OECD, 2024[7]).
Impact is at an emerging stage: Public sector innovation results are occasionally assessed, but gaps in monitoring and evaluation prevent a comprehensive understanding of effectiveness (OECD, 2024[7]).
The figure below visualises Bulgaria’s public sector innovative capacity across the dimensions of purpose, potential, capacity, and impact at individual, organisational, and system levels based on the assessment results. The colours show how advanced innovative capacity is across these dimensions and levels, from least advanced, dark red, to most advanced, dark green, and lighter colours in between.
Note: The figure was created based on the innovative capacity assessment criteria based on (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[6]) – Annex A. Bulgaria’s emerging innovative capacity corresponds to an average value of 1.7 (Purpose 2.5; Potential 1.3; Potential 1.7; Impact 1.3).
Source: OECD
The OECD used the survey data collected to analyse the causal determinants of public sector innovation through an econometric analysis (see Box 2.3). Issues related to leadership risk-taking behaviour, government silos and audits were shown to negatively impact innovation in Bulgaria. At the same time, the availability of funding, skills, technology, collaboration, citizen centricity, and other factors positively impacted innovation. The sections below outline these factors across the ICF’s four dimensions.
With the updated assessment survey methodology (Annex 2.A), it is possible to explore how innovative capacity factors affect innovation outputs. This analysis can support informing strategic decisions, efficient resource allocation, and the prioritisation of initiatives that have the highest impact on fostering innovation based on empirical evidence. This type of research is still uncommon in the public sector and should be considered exploratory.
Using a logit regression estimation, the OECD examined which ICF’s factors significantly influenced the act of innovating in Bulgaria while controlling for individual (age and gender) and institutional (tenure and policy sector) characteristics. The econometric model uses the binary variable “having participated in an innovation” as the dependent variable, and independent variables such as perceptions of skills, organisational support, motivation, permission to innovate, risk appetite, and drivers of innovation (See regression in Annex 2.B). Figure 2.3 illustrates the most relevant factors, with red bars indicating negative effects and blue bars indicating positive effects, all of which are statistically significant at a 99% confidence level.
The figure below shows the percentage point change in the odds of participating in an innovation in response to improvements in variables significant at a 99% confidence level.
Note: The figure shows the most robust determinants of self-reported participation in an innovation in the public sector in a logistic estimation that controls for individuals’ variables, organisation, and policy sectors' fixed effects. All variables are odds-ratios and statistically significant at 99%. Red bars indicate negative effects, and blue bars indicate positive effects. The results should be taken as exploratory rather than purely causal since the relationship between dependent and independent variables can be bidirectional. For example, drivers like innovation skills or motivation can initially affect innovation. Simultaneously, engaging in innovation activities can enhance skills and motivation. There may also be underlying correlations and interactive effects among variables that make the isolation of a singular determinant (causal relationship) challenging. In the same way, highly motivated civil servants could be better trained and equipped with more skills, or vice versa.
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Factors influencing innovation negatively:
Public servants in Bulgaria who consider their organisation to have more stable political priorities and political staff, and cross-government collaboration have 37% and 33% lower odds, respectively, of participating in innovation. Moreover, public servants who perceive innovation in their organisation is driven by pressure from auditors and external evaluators have 27% lower odds of engaging in innovation.
These findings may seem a bit counterintuitive, but Bulgaria’s stable and conservative political leadership may focus on maintaining existing processes and priorities, limiting innovation (Berry, 2023[8]; OECD, 2023[9]). Additionally, in a highly siloed administrative context, it is more difficult to launch projects, and there is a higher fear of losing control, a discouraging factor (Torfing, 2016[10]; OECD, 2022[11]). Lastly, public servants may find it difficult or too risky to innovate under the current compliance and accountability frameworks (Lamoreaux, Myers and Mason, 2024[12]; Raudla, Taro and Agu, 2016[13]).
Factors influencing innovation positively:
Public servants in Bulgaria significantly increase their odds of participating in innovation if they perceive organisational support in the form of resource commitment to developing new ideas (90%), the use of technology to promote innovation (60%), using data to innovate (58%), enabling internal collaboration (57%), and citizen involvement in policy and service design (40%). Additionally, those who perceive public sector innovation as driven by technological change (40%), possess skills for applying innovation (32%), or have job autonomy (19%) also experience higher odds of engaging in innovative projects.
Note: See econometric analysis in Annex 2.B.
Source: OECD.
2.2.1. Purpose: What is driving the intent to innovate?
In Bulgaria, public sector innovation is driven by the top. Innovative initiatives exist, but most of them are primarily results of top-down requests and are not developed through a methodical innovation process (OECD, 2024[7]). As shown by the Innovative Capacity Survey carried out in the country, there is an overreliance of personal motivation as the primary incentive for innovation. As such, Bulgarian public servants generally rely on intrinsic motivation (internal factors such as personal satisfaction or sense of accomplishment), with extrinsic motivation (external factors such as rewards or recognition) playing a secondary role in encouraging innovation (OECD, 2024[7]).
Organisations in general lack a strategic approach to public sector innovation. While some sector-specific strategies consider a public sector innovation dimension, most organisations lack a strategic approach (OECD, 2024[7]). The study of causal determinants of innovation factors in the country (see Box 2.3) showed that current audit frameworks and practices may not support driving opportunities for innovation but rather discourage them (OECD, 2024[7]).
Public sector innovation is not connected with government priority agendas (OECD, 2024[7]; OECD, 2022[14]). Bulgaria’s focus on adapting to and harnessing technological change is relevant to drive innovation, but this should be aligned with other relevant government strategies and public sector reform (see Box 2.3) (OECD, 2024[7]). There is no public sector innovation strategic framework or support from the central government, undermining sustained innovation efforts, leading to fragmented initiatives, and missing opportunities for systemic improvements (OECD, 2024[7]).
2.2.2. Potential: What determines whether innovative efforts are attempted?
There is a low level of permission to innovate among administrative and professional staff. Perceiving autonomy to innovate (e.g., freedom to explore new ideas) is a key determinant of innovation in Bulgaria (see Box 2.3). However, most administrative and professional staff do not perceive this (OECD, 2024[7]). A low portion of public servants perceive psychological safety – the feeling that one can take risks, speak up, and disagree – when innovating (OECD, 2024[7]). Furthermore, leadership risk-averse behaviours hinder the likelihood of innovating due to preferences for preserving existing processes (see Box 2.3).
Limited collaboration and resource constraints inhibit innovation. Bulgarian public institutions encounter numerous challenges in innovation, primarily due to limited collaboration and resource constraints (technology, skills, time, data, and human resources) (OECD, 2024[7]), both founded as crucial determinants (see Box 2.3). Moreover, enhancing organisational support for meaningful citizen participation can further accelerate the uptake of innovation (see Box 2.3) (OECD, 2024[7]).
Lack of adequate and dedicated organisational funding for innovation. This results in strategic misalignment, limited innovation scope, and inconsistent potential across the administration (OECD, 2024[7]). Highlighted as a causal determinant (see Box 2.3), this funding gap hinders the system and organisations' abilities to consistently engage in and sustain innovative efforts (OECD, 2024[7]).
2.2.3. Capacity: What is needed to carry out innovative efforts and integrate them into everyday practice?
There are competencies and skills gaps among all levels of the administration. Applied innovation skills – a crucial determinant of innovation (see Box 2.3) – exist, but they are not widely adopted among public servants (OECD, 2024[7]; OECD, 2022[14]). Specific competencies such as prototyping and iterating, innovative procurement, open innovation, and technology design are almost inexistent among public servants (OECD, 2024[7]). Moreover, Bulgaria lacks a workforce strategy that enhances motivation, and skills and competencies to boost innovation efforts (OECD, 2024[7]).
Organisations innovate mostly to improve current systems rather than for more transformative projects. Innovative practices in Bulgaria consistently aim at improving current operating systems and responding to evolving citizens’ needs (OECD, 2024[7]). However, organisations could develop a more diverse and risk-balanced project management portfolio to consistently use innovation for reaching strategic goals and preparing for future risks (OECD, 2024[7]).
System-level institutional supports for public sector innovation are underdeveloped. In Bulgaria, initiatives such as an innovation network, an innovation competition, and capacity-building programmes exist, but they have limited participation and a narrow range of activities (OECD, 2024[7]). A programme to support the Administration in incubating and scaling concrete cross-government solutions, and further hands-on training programmes are required (OECD, 2024[7]).
2.2.4. Impact: How is the impact of innovative efforts understood and informing future practice?
There are limited practices for understanding the impact of innovative efforts. Individual performance assessments rarely recognise innovative behaviours (OECD, 2024[7]). Learning mechanisms and cycles (e.g., post-implementation reviews) are absent, limiting continuous improvement and effective adaptation to changing conditions in the Bulgarian State Administration (OECD, 2024[7]).
Monitoring, evaluation, and communication of innovation results are missing. The absence of a dedicated public sector innovation monitoring function limits innovation awareness, and the lack of innovation evaluations obstructs understanding of their effectiveness and efficiency (OECD, 2024[7]). Communication about innovation, both internally and externally, is generally insufficient (OECD, 2024[7]).
This section compares the innovative capacity assessment of Bulgaria and Armenia. Although other countries’ assessments also used the OECD Innovative Capacity Framework (ICF), Bulgaria’s and Armenia’s assessments are more comparable due to nearly identical research methods and data collection used. The updated research methods approach will also allow comparison of future country assessments (see Annex 2.A).
Both Bulgaria and Armenia are in the early stages of building public sector innovation (Figure 2.4). In both countries, innovation largely depends on public servants' personal motivation rather than formal incentives. In Bulgaria, innovation is not yet connected to the government's priorities (OECD, 2024[7]), while Armenia has a government-led approach anchored in its Public Administration Reform (PAR) (OECD, 2024[15]). The potential to innovative in both countries faces significant barriers in translating innovative ideas into action, primarily due to low levels of permission to innovate and limited collaboration mechanisms (OECD, 2024[15]; OECD, 2024[7]).
Dedicated programmes to support PSI exist in both countries but are underdeveloped (OECD, 2024[15]; OECD, 2024[7]). Armenia, however, is pushing forward with reforms and innovation initiatives led by the central government (OECD, 2024[15]). At the capacity level, Bulgaria's skills in innovation are not largely adopted (OECD, 2024[7]), while Armenia shows a slightly broader uptake across civil servants, with specialised teams and flagship projects (OECD, 2024[15]). Both countries also have limited practices in monitoring and evaluating the impact of innovations, which limits the ability to effectively spread innovation approaches across their public sectors (OECD, 2024[15]; OECD, 2024[7]).
The figure below represents a comparative visual of Bulgaria’s emerging innovative capacity and Armenia’s managing innovative capacity.
Note: Figures created based on the innovative capacity assessment criteria based on (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[6]) – Annex A.
Source: OECD.
The government-driven approach to innovation is stronger in Armenia than in Bulgaria. Both Bulgaria and Armenia rely on public servants’ intrinsic motivation as a key driver of public servants’ intent to innovate, while extrinsic rewards play a minimal role (Figure 2.5) (OECD, 2024[15]; OECD, 2024[7]). In Bulgaria, innovation is primarily top-down, with fragmented efforts. Innovation is influenced by a wide range of drivers but is not connected to government priorities (Figure 2.6) (OECD, 2024[7]). In Armenia, innovation is also driven by personal fulfilment, but also through some extrinsic incentives such as salary increases and promotions (OECD, 2024[15]). Armenia also shows a more strategic and structured approach to innovation, with a focus on government strategies, technological change, and public sector reform (Figure 2.6). This is supported by its 2021-2026 Public Administration Reform Strategy that drives innovation across the public sector (OECD, 2024[15]).
Share of public servants by perceived motivation to innovate in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= Bulgaria: 3,633; Armenia: 2,503. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Motivation: Please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to the reasons why you are presently involved in your work. Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024; OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived drivers of innovation in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= Bulgaria: 3,749; Armenia: 2,578. Respondents: Head of Organisations (L2) and Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who perceive the statements to be “Important” or “Very important”, “Agree” or “Strongly agree”. The respondents are asked to answer the question: In my perception, innovation in my organisation is driven by: Please rank statements from 1 "Not important” to 5 "Very important” or 1 "Strongly disagree” to 5 "Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024; OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
While the uptake of innovation is similar in both countries (Figure 2.7), Bulgaria and Armenia's potential for public sector innovation differ in scope. In Bulgaria, low levels of permission to innovate (Figure 2.8), a lack of psychological safety, and leadership's risk-averse behaviour are generalised challenges across the Administration (OECD, 2024[7]). Limited collaboration, resource constraints, and a lack of dedicated funding further hinder innovation efforts (OECD, 2024[7]). In contrast, Armenia's permission to innovate is comparatively more perceived by public servants (Figure 2.8), and barriers to innovation such as a lack of safe experimentation spaces, risk avoidance, and limited collaborative culture are less predominant (OECD, 2024[15]). Armenia’s PAR strategy also offers a coordinating role in reform efforts (OECD, 2024[15]), unlike Bulgaria’s fragmented approach.
Share of public servants involved in designing and/or implementing an innovation in their workplace during the last two years, 2024.
Note: N= Bulgaria: 2,801; Armenia: 2,503. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who have participated in innovation during the last two-year period. The respondents are asked to answer the question: The OECD defines innovation as something new or novel to context, implemented, and aimed at achieving impact. The focus of innovations could include services, products, processes, working methods and operating procedures, policy development, communication. Based on this definition, have you been involved in designing and/or implementing an innovation in your workplace during the last two-year period? [Single choice].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024; OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Share of public servants by perceived permission to innovate dimension in their organisation, 2024.
Note: N= Bulgaria: 3,633, Armenia: 2,503. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who “Agree” or “Strongly agree” with the following statements. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Licence to innovate: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please rank each statement from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly agree”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024; OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
Bulgaria and Armenia both face similar challenges in building and integrating innovative capacity into everyday practices. In Bulgaria, gaps in innovation skills (Figure 2.9) and limited strategic workforce development hinders transformative innovation (OECD, 2024[7]). Capacity-building initiatives exist but are sporadic and have a narrow reach (OECD, 2024[7]). In Armenia, the adoption of innovation skills is higher (Figure 2.9) but also constrained by limited capacity-building opportunities (OECD, 2024[15]). The country also has limited practices for recruiting and developing talent with innovative skills (OECD, 2024[15]). Both countries require stronger organisational practices, such as budgeting and portfolio management, to support a mix of risk-balanced innovation efforts, including incremental and transformative initiatives (OECD, 2024[15]; OECD, 2024[7]).
Share of public servants by perceived adoption of skills and competencies, 2024.
Note: N= Bulgaria: 3,633; Armenia: 2,503. Respondents: Public Servants (L3). Figure presents the share of respondents who asses their skills to be “High” or “Very high”. The respondents are asked to answer the question: Overall, how would you assess your own skills in the follow areas? Please rank statements from 1 "Very low” to 5 "Very high”. [Ranking].
Source: OECD Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024; OECD Armenia’s Innovative Capacity Survey, 2024.
As many other OECD countries, Bulgaria and Armenia have limited practices in understanding and leveraging the impact of their innovative efforts. In Bulgaria, there are few practices for assessing innovation, with limited recognition of innovative behaviours in performance assessments and a lack of learning mechanisms such as post-implementation reviews (OECD, 2024[7]). Monitoring and communication of innovation results are minimal, hindering continuous improvement (OECD, 2024[7]). Similarly, in Armenia, performance assessments are often seen as punitive, and the lack of monitoring and evaluation across policies makes it difficult to gauge the impact of innovation (OECD, 2024[15]). While Armenia is developing guidelines for monitoring, further capacity-building is needed (OECD, 2024[15]). Both countries need better systems for learning, sharing best practices, and evaluating innovation to inform future improvements (OECD, 2024[15]; OECD, 2024[7]).
References
[8] Berry, F. (2023), Finding Common Ground: Innovation and Diffusion across Political Science and Public Management Research, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000112.
[6] Kaur, M. and H. Buisman (2022), Innovative capacity of governments: A systemic framework“, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 51, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/52389006-en.
[12] Lamoreaux, P., N. Myers and S. Mason (2024), Costs of Public Auditor Oversight: Real Earnings Management and Innovation Loss., https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-2022-089.
[7] OECD (2024), Bulgaria’s Innovative Capacity Assessment - Workshops, Interviews and Survey Findings.
[15] OECD (2024), Innovative capacity and participatory policy making in Armenia.
[9] OECD (2023), Global Trends in Government Innovation 2023, https://doi.org/10.1787/0655b570-en.
[4] OECD (2023), Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Government of Romania, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b8a3950d-en.
[5] OECD (2023), Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Public Sector of Latvia, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8d3102d9-en.
[14] OECD (2022), Supporting Bulgaria’s Public Administration, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjj4v7huIqHAxXkTqQEHfgfCWwQFnoECCQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.strategy.bg%2FFileHandler.ashx%3FfileId%3D30250&usg=AOvVaw1YVObBZsaV8yBJi8v-LIuX&opi=89978449.
[11] OECD (2022), Tackling Policy Challenges Through Public Sector Innovation: A Strategic Portfolio Approach, https://doi.org/10.1787/052b06b7-en.
[3] OECD (2021), Public Sector Innovation Scan of Denmark, https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Public-Sector-Innovation-Scan-of-Denmark.pdf.
[2] OECD (2019), The Innovation System of the Public Service of Brazil: An Exploration of its Past, Present and Future Journey, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1b203de-en.
[1] OECD (2018), The Innovation System of the Public Service of Canada, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307735-en.
[16] OECD (2018), The Innovation System of the Public Service of Canada, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307735-en.
[13] Raudla, R., K. Taro and C. Agu (2016), The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organizations: The Case of Estonia, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0308-0.
[10] Torfing, J. (2016), Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector.
Earlier versions of the ICF methodology was early tested in country studies of Canada (OECD, 2018[16]), Brazil (OECD, 2019[2]) and elsewhere, but the updated approach was refined in the assessments carried out in Latvia (OECD, 2023[5]) and Romania (OECD, 2023[4]) (Kaur and Buisman, 2022[6]). This updated framework is now being used in the current assessment and Armenia (forthcoming). The methodology uncovers individual, organisational and system level data with the aim to equip governments to design evidence-based public sector innovation supports and to work with system's levers to increase the quantity and quality of innovation in the public sector.
Based on initial country assessment indicated above, the research methodology has been refined to ensure a more in-depth exploration of factors influencing innovation capacities at different levels. The research methods used include a literature reviews, multi-level surveys (see Annex Table 2.A.1), fact-finding workshops, interviews/bilateral discussions, and validation workshops.
The results of innovative capacity assessments can help build a business case for investments in key areas of innovative capacity support. For example, they can reveal:
Best practices that should be scaled and spread across the public sector;
Key system-level issues that significantly impact innovation outcomes (e.g., audit, recruitment, procurement);
Skills and motivation gaps impacting the capacity of public servants to innovate;
Areas with the biggest innovation needs based on strategic aims; and
Barriers preventing explicit innovation institutional supports (e.g., labs, networks) from achieving optimal impact.
These assessments can help countries:
Make strategic investments in PSI to optimise resource efficiency and impact;
Build the business case for explicit innovation supports (labs, funds, networks, sandboxes, etc.); and
Understand how innovation can help deliver key strategic and political agendas.
Note: The deployment of the survey modules is dependent on the assessment. The modules outlined above can be mixed into specific public sector innovation assessments, depending on the scope of the study and the country's interest. Module 1 is compulsory in all assessments. Modules 2 or 3 can be selected depending on the scope of the study and considering feasibility in the specific country administrative setting. Module 4 can provide an essential view of individual-level drivers of innovation and innovation needs, but depending on the administrative contexts, it may be difficult to implement, although representative samples of public servants can provide significant insights. Module 5 and 6 are optional and dependent on the scale and scope of the assessment. In some settings, bodies outside the government (third sector, private companies, etc.) are also surveyed to understand public sector innovation dynamics and outcomes.
Source: OECD.
The table below shows the percentage point change in the odds of participating in an innovation (estimate) in response to variable changes.
Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01
Source: OECD