Management Review Quarterly

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00174-5

Innovation types in public sector organizations:

a systematic review of the literature

Laurin Buchheim1 · Alexander Krieger2 · Sarah Arndt1

Received: 29 July 2018 / Accepted: 10 October 2019

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
When analyzing the process of organizational innovation, it is often argued that a dis-
tinction between different types of innovation is necessary to gain meaningful insights
on what drives and impedes innovation and how organizations may best use innova-
tion to stay competitive. While this holds as much for public sector organizations as
it does for private businesses, the former do not seek to maximize profits but rather
serve the common good, which may affect the types of innovation implemented. This
article systematically reviews the literature on innovation types in the context of pub-
lic sector organizations. Categorizing the multitude of typologies used by scholars,
it aggregates findings on antecedents, outcomes, and combinative effects of prod-
uct/service, process, governance, and paradigm innovations and derives management
suggestions. Results indicate that research so far has focused on product/service and
process innovations and their organizational antecedents. The variety of individual
factors analyzed makes it difficult to extract generalizable findings and may hinder
theory-building. Management needs to pay close attention to the organization’s inno-
vation characteristics. Future research can profit from standardized definitions and
more diversified data.

Keywords Public sector innovation · Public management · Innovation types ·

Literature review

JEL Classification H83 · O30 · O31

B Laurin Buchheim
laurin.buchheim@gmail.com

1 University of Mannheim, Schloss, 68131 Mannheim, Germany

2 University of Trier, Universitätsring 15, 54296 Trier, Germany

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

1 Introduction

1.1 Innovation research in the public sector

The concept of New Public Management introduced well-established corporate prin-

ciples to the public sector. This includes the idea of innovation as a means to improve
service quality, stay competitive, and work effectively and efficiently in a dynamic
market environment (Piening 2011; Arundel et al. 2015). Research has increasingly
focused on innovation in the context of public sector organizations (PSO) (Lægreid
et al. 2011). Public sector organizations are considered those organizations that operate
in the public sector, which is defined as “those parts of the economy that are either in
state ownership or under contract to the state, plus those parts that are regulated or sub-
sidized in the public context” (Flynn 2007, p. 2). Scholars have suggested to categorize
innovation according to different types because not all innovations are driven by the
same success factors and different types of innovation may be optimal to reach different
organizational goals (Osborne and Brown 2011). While there seems to be a consensus
that innovation types should be taken account of, it is less clear what such a taxonomy
of innovation should include (Garcia and Calantone 2002). Established private sector
typologies, including product and process innovation, are frequently adopted in public
sector research (Damanpour 1991). However, public organizations are not exclusively
motivated by an individual cost-saving or profit-maximizing maxim; rather, they serve
society as a whole by increasing fairness and justice, and encouraging citizen partic-
ipation (Moore and Hartley 2008). Public managers see distinct dynamics of drivers
and barriers arise from their organization’s innovation activities, which should be con-
sidered in innovation planning (Hartley 2006). Scholars have therefore advocated the
introduction of specific public sector types of innovation, such as governance innova-
tion (Moore and Hartley 2008). A broad base of research, standardized definitions of
innovation and typologies as well as systematic comparisons may lead to meaningful
innovation theories that inform management strategies (Wolfe 1994).

1.2 Aim of this article

Innovation and innovation types have been examined from many perspectives and is
the topic of numerous recent literature reviews. Not aiming to give a comprehensive
summary, the following passages demonstrate the variety of sub-topics of innovation
management research and position the present literature review.
Innovation management research ranges in focus from the very definition of innova-
tion and the individuals that innovate to the organizational structure and industry sector
where innovation takes place. Baregheh et al. (2009) analyze the literature and merge
different business disciplines’ perspectives and respective terminologies to arrive at
an integrative definition of innovation. Block et al. (2017) conduct a literature review
to summarize the findings of 102 studies on antecedents, behavior, and consequences
of innovative entrepreneurship. Crossan and Apaydin (2010) derive a comprehensive
framework of determinants and dimensions of organizational innovation by consoli-
dating the findings of 525 articles. Hjalager (2010) in her literature review summarizes

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

key contributions to the field regarding determinants of different forms of innovation

as well as their impact on regional and national economies.
As can be seen from these examples, innovation management research is a vast
field reaching into many topics of management research in general. What follows is a
closer look at research in the public sector.
There are several thorough reviews of the public sector innovation literature in gen-
eral (e.g., Hartley 2006; De Vries et al. 2016). So far, however, no review has focused
on the current state of public sector research on innovation types. Hartley (2006) dis-
cusses innovation typologies and highlights their role in comprehending public sector
innovation. Walker (2014) reviews the literature with respect to antecedents of process
innovations. De Vries et al. (2016) present an overview of the current state of public
sector innovation, emphasizing methodological gaps. While Hartley (2006) and De
Vries et al. (2016) include innovation types in their reviews, Walker (2014) has a nar-
row focus on just one specific type of innovation (namely process innovation). What
differentiates the present review from previous articles is the clear focus on compre-
hensively classified innovation types and their interaction with each other and their
environment. By means of a systematic literature review, it organizes the multitude
of innovation typologies used and summarizes what is known about antecedents, out-
comes, and combinative effects of different types of innovation in public organizations.
The main objectives of this article are to present established insights, indicate areas in
need of more exploration, and discuss the implications for public management.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The next chapter, introduces
the concept of innovation types in detail. It provides examples of innovation typologies
from the private and public sector and illustrates this review’s understanding of inno-
vation types. The concept is more explicitly linked to the public sector, introducing
the framework of this article. The innovation types later applied in the literature anal-
ysis are presented and their selection is motivated. The third chapter elaborates on the
methodology used to systematically search, select, and analyze the literature. Results
of the literature search and analysis are presented in the fourth and discussed in the fifth
chapter. The last chapter consists of a brief recapitulation of the aim, main findings,
and limitations of this review and offers suggestions of future research avenues.

2 Theory and concepts

2.1 Innovation types

The following passage addresses the issue of defining innovation before entering a
discussion of innovation types and introducing the innovation types used in the context
of public sector organizations for the remainder of this article.
Several definitions have been used in innovation research to capture the “essence”
of innovation (Baregheh et al. 2009, 1323). Knight’s (1967, p. 478) definition of inno-
vation as “the adoption of a change which is new to an organization and to the relevant
environment” is an early example. Similar understandings of innovation can be found
throughout the literature (e.g., Daft 1982; Damanpour and Evan 1984; Damanpour
1992). They differ in their use of the word new: while many scholars mean new to

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

the organization adopting it (e.g., Zaltman et al. 1973; Aiken and Hage 1971; Rogers
2003; Walker 2007; Damanpour et al. 2009), others require an innovation to be “ob-
jectively” (Rogers 2003, p. 12) new in the respective environment (e.g., Becker and
Whisler 1967; Bingham and McNaught 1976). Definitions may further be limited to
include only those changes that are fully implemented or that cause a certain degree of
disruption (Hartley 2006). It seems that any scholarly thought or insight on innovation
types must be seen in light of the underlying definition of innovation.
Scholars have argued that in order to develop adequate theories on the process,
drivers and barriers, outcomes, and the effectiveness of innovations, it is necessary
to further categorize them according to different characteristics, such as types and
attributes (e.g., Daft and Becker 1978; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981; Damanpour 1987;
Wolfe 1994). The lack of such a classification explains contradictory findings on
innovation (Downs and Mohr 1976). Damanpour (1988) finds evidence of this in a
review of studies on organizational factors and their influence on innovation adoption:
seemingly inconsistent findings become aligned when categorized according to the
innovation types examined. Zaltman et al. (1973) provide an early overview of different
ways to categorize innovations: (1) “the state of the system”, which can be planned or
unplanned, (2) the “initial focus”, such as product or organizational structure, and (3)
the “outcome or effect”, meaning the extent to which the innovation brings change to
the organization (Zaltman et al. 1973, p. 31). They argue that there are attributes which
any type of innovation may possess, and which may be essential in characterizing
innovations, such as cost, returns to investment, and complexity (Zaltman et al. 1973).
On that basis, Daft and Becker (1978, p. 123) distinguish between the two concepts,
defining “type as members of a class and attribute as characteristics of members of
a class.” Referring to Zaltman et al.’s (1973) overview, they conclude that only the
initial focus criterion describes types of innovation, whereas the other categorizations
represent attributes (Daft and Becker 1978). This review follows Daft and Becker’s
(1978) definition of innovation types. This excludes such categories as incremental
or disruptive innovation (e.g., Dewar and Dutton 1986), which may be referred to as
types of innovation, as well as more recent terms, such as user innovation (Von Hippel
2005) and open innovation (Schroll and Mild 2012). Following Daft and Becker (1978)
however, they are attributes. Without this clear distinction of types and attributes of
innovation, it becomes challenging to quantify effects in a meaningful manner because,
the authors argue, the concepts overlap: an attribute may be common to innovations
which are fundamentally different in type.
In both public and business administration research, a considerable number of
innovation typologies have been suggested and applied to organizations and their
innovation activities (Damanpour et al. 2009). Rowley et al. (2011, p. 74) distinguish
between early “foundation models” and more recent “integrated models.” The for-
mer use pairs of innovation types (binary), while the latter, building on foundation
models, incorporate several dimensions of innovation types in order to explain more
complex organizational environments (Rowley et al. 2011). Knight’s (1967) model,
for example, consists of four types of innovation: (1) product or service, referring to
the development and provision of new products or services, (2) production-process,
relating to changes in the production process of an organization’s offerings, (3) orga-
nizational, describing new social structures (such as hierarchy or incentive systems),

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

and (4) people, concerning changes in culture, job roles and staff. Two widely adopted
binary typologies are those of product-process and administrative-technical innova-
tion (Rowley et al. 2011). The former has been used, for example, by Bingham and
McNaught (1976) in their study of innovation adaption in several public organiza-
tions. They define product innovation as the introduction of new physical products
(externally produced) to a public agency, such as factory-built houses in public hous-
ing construction (Bingham and McNaught 1976). They define process innovation as
a change in the modus operandi in a public organization (Bingham and McNaught
1976). Examining innovations in high school districts, Daft and Becker (1978) distin-
guish between administrative innovations, which affect the organizational structure,
and technical innovations, which affect how and what is taught. They provide a rule of
classification: if the innovation affects “classroom content” it is technical, otherwise
it is administrative (Daft and Becker 1978, p. 98).
There have been attempts to capture more dimensions of innovation within one
model. For example, Francis and Bessant (2005) discuss a model of four innovation
types in the business sector. Their understanding of type is quite compatible with Daft
and Becker (1978), as it focuses on where change is caused (Francis and Bessant 2005).
They distinguish between (1) product, (2) process, (3) position, and (4) paradigm inno-
vations (Francis and Bessant 2005). While the former two are conceptually equivalent
to the corresponding types described by Knight (1967), the latter two relate to a
change in customer perception or market position of an organization’s products or ser-
vices (position innovation) and a change in underlying concepts and understandings
(paradigm innovation), respectively (Francis and Bessant 2005). Rowley et al. (2011)
develop a mapping tool based on Francis and Bessant’s (2005) framework. They con-
duct a review of largely private sector literature on innovation types, assigning the
most relevant classifications to the four types (Rowley et al. 2011).
As the examples provided above illustrate, there is a lack of “paradigmatic consen-
sus” among innovation researchers, which complicates the process of theory-building
(Hartley 2006, p. 79). Although Bingham and McNaught (1976) adopt two of Knight’s
(1967) innovation types, they define and operationalize them in the specific context of
their study. Similarly, what Daft and Becker (1978) mean by administrative and tech-
nical innovation must be seen in the context of their theoretical framework. Integrative
models such as that of Francis and Bessant (2005), will require an even more complex
definition and operationalization of innovation types. The authors deem it important
to consider and control for divergent theoretical lenses when gathering conceptual and
empirical results from different studies. The following section discusses theoretical
reflections and introduces a framework to be applied in this literature review.

2.2 Theoretical reflections and research questions

Comparability and theory-building become challenging when terminologies are not

used consistently across studies (Wolfe 1994). Faced with a multitude of definitions,
the authors find it helpful to systemize and (where necessary) re-categorize the innova-
tion types used in the literature in order to draw an aggregate picture of the current state
of innovation type research in public organizations. Similar to Rowley et al. (2011),

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

Product/
Service

Governance Antecedents Process Outcomes

Paradigm

Fig. 1 Analytical framework. Adapted from Francis and Bessant (2005)

this review categorizes the literature along four types of innovation: product/service,
process, governance, and paradigm (see Fig. 1).
Product/service and process innovations are abundant in research and relatively
clearly defined. Numerous integrative models include them (e.g., Damanpour 1987;
Hartley 2005; Windrum 2008; Walker 2014) and they are both compatible with this
study’s definition of innovation types as the initial focus of change is evident.
Governance innovations are typical of the public sector: they change the institutional
framework within which public organizations operate (Moore and Hartley 2008). This
includes shifts of decision-making authority to citizens, changes in activity (such as
privatization), or the restructuring of its evaluation (for example, in terms of fairness
and justice instead of cost efficiency) (Moore and Hartley 2008). These changes are
related to the unique duties (serve the public good) of public institutions that often
reach beyond any individual organization (Moore and Hartley 2008). Hartley (2005)
describes a lack of attention devoted to this kind of innovation by scholars and suggests
a specific governance innovation type.
Paradigm innovation relates to changes in the mental framework or perspective on
the issues that an organization faces (Francis and Bessant 2005). While other categories
of innovation (e.g., product or process) may follow, paradigm innovation is a shift in the
underlying perspective that precedes such changes (Rowley et al. 2011). Rowley et al.
(2011) advocate for more research on this innovation type as it is substantially different
from others. The present review discusses all insights from the literature analysis on
innovation types in the dimensions of the four-type mapping tool (outlined above).
Scholars often look at antecedents of innovation to understand the innovation pro-
cess of organizations (e.g., Kimberly and Evansiko 1981; Damanpour 1991; Pärna and
von Tunzelmann 2007; Bernier et al. 2015). Organizational factors (e.g., organizational
complexity, size) and environmental factors (e.g., urbanization, unemployment) are
frequently examined (e.g., Bingham and McNaught 1976; Damanpour and Schneider

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

2006; Naranjo-Gil 2009). Other factors concern the individual employee level (e.g.,
tenure length, Aiken et al. 1980) and the innovation itself (e.g., complexity, Zaltman
et al. 1973). De Vries et al. (2016) find that outcomes of innovation in the public sector,
such as cost effectiveness or citizen involvement, are not considered in a number of
studies. As innovation types have different effects on drivers, barriers, and outcomes
(Damanpour 1988), this study follows other literature reviews on public innovation in
examining these factors (e.g., Hartley 2006; Walker 2014; De Vries et al. 2016).
It is necessary to not only look at types of innovation in isolation but also to study
their combinative effects (Damanpour et al. 2009). Certain types of innovation are
driven by distinct factors and not every type of innovation may be an adequate mea-
sure for achieving individual organizational goals (Daft and Becker 1978). Innovation
in organizations is therefore a complex process involving several types of innovation
at once (Hartley 2005). Some research explores the combinative effects of innovation
types (e.g., Damanpour et al. 1989, 2009; Walker 2007). In order to design an innova-
tion strategy, management needs to consider the positive or negative effects resulting
from the combination of innovation types (Damanpour et al. 2009). The last pillar of
this review’s analytical framework is an examination of the interaction of different
innovation types. This framework will be used to analyze and present the literature
on innovation types in public organizations based on a systematic literature review
(Denyer and Tranfield 2009; Fisch and Block 2018).

3 Methods

3.1 Literature search and selection

Based on the theoretical background, the aim of this review is to provide an overview
of the definitions, drivers and barriers, outcomes, and combinative effects of different
innovation types. This served as an orientation for the following literature search and
analysis. An electronic search was conducted using two online databases, EBSCOhost
and Wiley. Using Boolean operators and truncations, the following search term was
constructed: innovation AND [type* OR typolog*] AND [public OR government* OR
state*] AND [institution* OR organi* OR administration* OR agenc* OR enterprise*
OR bod* OR service OR sector]. Additional restrictions were applied, returning only
peer-reviewed journal articles whose abstracts contain the search term and which are
written in English (only EBSCOhost offers a language filter). On Wiley, the Business
and Management filter was applied (this includes corporate and public administration).
The search returned 1255 hits on EBSCOhost and 211 hits on Wiley and was last con-
ducted in May 2018. In order to assure that the most relevant literature be included,
the five public administration journals most highly ranked by the German Academic
Association for Business Research were additionally scanned using the above search
term. They are: Journal of Public Economics (Journal Impact Factor: 1.905), Jour-
nal of Public Administration Research and Theory (Journal Impact Factor: 3.907),
Governance (Journal Impact Factor: 3.833), Journal of Accounting and Public Policy
(Journal Impact Factor: 1.796), and Public Administration (Journal Impact Factor:
2.87). The search in the five journals returned 19 hits and was last conducted in May

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Characteristic Inclusion Exclusion

Field Innovation in the public sector Innovation in other or unspecified

Topic Defined innovation types
Study design Conceptual or empirical
Language English
Publication status Published in an international,
peer-reviewed journal
sectors
Undefined innovation types, innovation
in general, innovation attributes
Other designs
Not English
Not published in an international,
peer-reviewed journal

2018. Lastly, experts in the field of public management research were provided with
the selection criteria and the search results and asked to suggest further potentially
relevant studies. This resulted in 2 relevant articles being included in the review.
Articles found through the literature search were included in this review if they
satisfied the following criteria (see also Table 1):
• Field—The subject of the article should be innovation in the public sector. Following
De Vries et al. (2016) in their review, the public sector is defined here as “those
parts of the economy that are either in state ownership or under contract to the state,
plus those parts that are regulated or subsidized in the public context.” (Flynn 2007,
p. 2)
• Topic—The article should contain the search term from above in its abstract and
its content must explicitly deal with innovation types. This means that innovations
discussed in the article must be classified as a certain type of innovation. Articles
were especially excluded, if they dealt with innovation attributes instead of types
(see discussion in Sect. 2.1) or if they failed to provide any definition or justification
for the classification (as this is likely to be an incidental classification instead of one
intended to examine a certain type of innovation).
• Study design—The article may be of conceptual or empirical nature. Reviews were
excluded, if they did not substantially contribute conceptual or empirical findings.
• Language—The article must be written in English.
• Publication status—The article must be published in an international, peer-reviewed
journal.
Citations in the articles resulting from the electronic search were tracked for addi-
tional literature compliant with the eligibility criteria (Rowley et al. 2011).

3.2 Literature analysis

Excluding reference tracking, 1485 articles were screened. The first rough selection
was carried out by skimming the title and abstract of each article. It was checked
whether all the eligibility criteria were met. Duplicates were removed, as well as arti-
cles in other languages. The remaining articles were scanned by reading the abstracts
(and, where necessary, the whole article). The topic and study design criteria were used

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

to further exclude articles that did not comply. This selection process resulted in 37
articles included in the systematic literature review (see Table 2 for a complete list). A
data extraction sheet was created to record relevant information for the following anal-
ysis of the literature (Denyer and Tranfield 2009). This included basic information as
well as type of public organization discussed, innovation type discussed, as well as key
insights of the study. Conceptual work was reviewed and findings were recorded sep-
arately from empirical work. For empirical studies, similar antecedents and outcomes
were consolidated into broader categories if definitions showed sufficient overlap. For
each antecedent and outcome, it was recorded whether the respective study finds a
positive, negative, or no significant correlation for each of the four innovation types
of the mapping tool. This enabled a quantitative analysis of the frequency with which
factors were studied, as well as an identification of trends (i.e., the number of studies
reporting common results). In the next section, the results of the systematic literature
review are presented and discussed.

4 Results of the systematic review

4.1 Origin and focus of the literature

Almost half of the 37 studies (47%) were published between 2010 and 2018. About
one-third (29%) date back to the period between 2000 and 2009. One study dates
to the 1990s, six studies (16%) were published in the 1980s, and two studies are
from the 1970s. Most empirical studies considered here (94%) are based on data
originating from the Western part of the world. The majority are US and UK-based
(33% and 18%, respectively). Two studies were conducted in non-Western parts of the
world (China and Brazil). There is primarily empirical work dedicated to innovation
types in public organizations. Most studies (71%) are based on a quantitative design.
Qualitative empirical work is found in mixed methods studies (8%), paired with either
quantitative measures (e.g., Sousa et al. 2015), or with a case study (e.g., Piening
2011). Only 11% of the articles are conceptual.
Federal and local government agencies are subject of over half of the studies (9%
and 47%, respectively). Other organizations studied (in sum 29%) include the police
(King 2000), hospitals (Windrum and García-Goñi 2008), school districts (Daft 1978),
and public libraries (Damanpour and Evan 1984). Several studies, such as that by Bloch
and Bugge (2013), do not specify what kind of public organization lies at the center of
investigation. In the following section, insights on typologies and their determinants,
outcomes, and combinative effects are discussed.

4.2 Insights on innovation types

4.2.1 Mapping innovation typologies

Most typologies used in the literature can be assigned to one of the four categories
of the mapping tool without difficulty. Table 3 provides an overview of the frequency

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

Table 2 Literature included in the systematic review

# Authors Year Title Source

1 Danziger and Dutton Computers as an innovation Communications of the

1977 in American local ACM
governments
2 Daft A dual-core model of Academy of Management
1978 organizational innovation Journal
3 Aiken et al. Organizational Structure, Academy of Management
1980 Work Process, and Journal
Proposal Making in
Administrative
Bureaucracies
4 Damanpour and Evan Organizational innovation Administrative Science
1984 and performance: the Quarterly
problem of”
organizational lag”
5 Smith and Taebel Administrative innovation International Journal of
1985 in municipal government Public Administration
6 Damanpour The adoption of Journal of Management
1987 technological,
administrative, and
ancillary innovations:
Impact of organizational
factors
7 Damanpour et al. The relationship between Journal of Management
1989 types of innovation and Studies
organizational
performance
8 Brudney and Selden The adoption of innovation The American Review of
1995 by smaller local Public Administration
governments: The case of
computer technology
9 King Measuring police Policing: An International
2000 innovation: Issues and Journal of Police
measurement Strategies and
Management
10 Hinnant and O’Looney Examining pre-adoption IEEE Transactions on
2003 interest in online Engineering Management
innovations: an
exploratory study of
e-service personalization
in the public sector
11 Boyne et al. Explaining the adoption of Environment and Planning
2005 innovation: An empirical C: Government and
analysis of public Policy
management reform
12 Hartley Innovation in governance Public Money and
2005 and public services: Past Management
and present

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

Table 2 continued

# Authors Year Title Source

13 Walker Innovation type and Public Administration

2006 diffusion: An empirical
analysis of local
government
14 Walker An empirical evaluation of Journal of Public
2007 innovation types and Administration Research
organizational and and Theory
environmental
characteristics: Towards a
configuration framework
15 Moore and Hartley Innovations in governance Public Management
2008 Review
16 Perry and Danziger The Adoptability of Administration and Society
1980 Innovations: An
Empirical Assessment of
Computer Applications in
Local Governments
17 Windrum and García-Goñi A neo-Schumpeterian Research Policy
2008 model of health services
innovation
18 Damanpour et al. Combinative effects of Journal of Management
2009 innovation types and Studies
organizational
performance: A
longitudinal study of
service organizations
19 Naranjo-Gil The influence of Technovation
2009 environmental and
organizational factors on
innovation adoptions:
Consequences for
performance in public
sector organizations
20 Walker et al. Management innovation Journal of Public
2010 and organizational Administration Research
performance: The and Theory
mediating effect of
performance management
21 Bogacz-Wojtanowska Innovative public services Contemporary
2011 as a result of cooperation Management Quarterly
of public and
non-government
organisations
22 Byrne and Marx Technological innovations Journal of Police Studies
2011 in crime prevention and
policing. A review of the
research on
implementation and
impact

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

Table 2 continued

# Authors Year Title Source

23 Hansen Antecedents of Public Administration

2011 organizational
innovation: The diffusion
of new public
management into Danish
local government
24 Piening Insights into the process Public Management
2011 dynamics of innovation Review
implementation: the case
of public hospitals in
Germany
25 Schoeman et al. Commercialization Public Money &
2012 partnerships as an enabler Management
of UK public sector
innovation: the perfect
match?
26 Arundel and Huber From too little to too much Structural Change and
2013 innovation? Issues in Economic Dynamics
measuring innovation in
the public sector
27 Bloch and Bugge Public sector Structural Change and
2013 innovation—From theory Economic Dynamics
to measurement
28 Gonzalez et al. Innovation in public Journal of Business
2013 services: The case of Research
Spanish local government
29 Wu et al. Innovation in the Chinese Public Administration
2013 public sector: Typology
and distribution
30 Carassus et al. Factors that determine or Public Organization
2014 influence managerial Review
innovation in public
contexts: the case of local
performance management
31 Walker Internal and External Public Management
2014 Antecedents of Process Review
Innovation: A review and
extension
32 Arundel et al. How European public Research Policy
2015 sector agencies innovate:
The use of bottom-up,
policy-dependent and
knowledge-scanning
innovation methods

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

Table 2 continued

# Authors Year Title Source

33 Sousa et al. Portraying innovation in Revista de Administração

2015 the public service of
Brazil: Frameworks,
systematization and
characterization
34 De Vries et al. Innovation in the public Public Administration
2016 sector: A systematic
review and future
research agenda
35 Torugsa and Arundel The nature and incidence of Australian Journal of
2016a workgroup innovation in Public Administration
the Australian public
sector: evidence from the
Australian 2011 state of
the service survey
36 Torugsa and Arundel Complexity of innovation Public Management
2016b in the public sector: A Review
workgroup-level analysis
of related factors and
outcomes
37 De Vries et al. The diffusion and adoption Perspectives on Public
2018 of public sector Management and
innovations: a Governance
meta-synthesis of the
literature

of each innovation type. Out of 91 innovation types found in the literature, 52 (or
57%) were counted as process innovations. A notable share was classified as product
innovations (22%). Governance and paradigm innovations are not common in this
sample (9% and 10%, respectively). This is in line with reviews on public sector
innovation in general (e.g., De Vries et al. 2016). There was ambiguity where terms
such as technological innovation were used. From the classifications used, it was not
always clear whether the initial focus of a technological innovation would lie on the
product or the process. For example, Damanpour (1987, p. 677) defines technological
innovation as “changes in the technology.” Smith and Taebel (1985, p. 149) classify
an innovation as technological when it is “an adoption of new physical products or
processes.” The former definition leaves open whether the change affects products or
processes and the latter explicitly includes both as a possible focus of the innovation.
Such ambiguous definitions, however, were only used in 2% of the reviewed studies.
Conceptual insights on innovation types are presented below.

4.2.2 Conceptual findings

Two studies included in this review are of purely conceptual nature. Conceptual
thoughts often precede empirical work but infrequently move beyond an introduction
of the individual choice of innovation types to be used in the respective study. Hartley

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

Table 3 Distribution of Innovation type Frequency

innovation types in the analyzed
literature Process 52 (57%)
Product/service 20 (22%)
Governance 8 (9%)
Paradigm 9 (10%)
Ambiguous 2 (2%)

(2005) argues that innovations are often multidimensional, incorporating several types
of innovation. She points to the importance of examining drivers and impediments to
the adoption of different types of innovation and emphasizes that outcomes, especially
of failed innovations, must be studied in detail to develop effective innovation manage-
ment strategies in the public context (Hartley 2005). No suggestions are provided as to
what factors should be considered by scholars or how different types of innovation act
together. Moore and Hartley (2008) draw from several cases of public sector innovation
in order to highlight that governance innovation should be considered a distinct type
of innovation, differing from the well-established product/service/process typologies.
Outcomes of governance innovations, they argue, go beyond mere improvements in
efficiency and cost effectiveness (Moore and Hartley 2008). Rather, the objective is
to change the “broad social conditions” of not only what services are provided, but
also by whom they are provided, by whom they are financed and controlled, and with
what measures (fairness, justice) they are evaluated (Moore and Hartley 2008, p. 15).
In the following, the empirical work dedicated to antecedents of innovation types is
discussed.

4.2.3 Antecedents of innovation types

The majority of the studies reviewed here focus on antecedents of innovation types:
28 (or 76%) of the studies included in this review examine or discuss antecedents.
Following De Vries et al. (2016), these factors can generally be categorized into four
groups. They relate to (1) the environmental level (e.g., unemployment), (2) the orga-
nizational level (e.g., organizational size), (3) the individual/employee level (e.g., staff
competence), or (4) the innovation level (e.g., complexity of the innovation) (De Vries
et al. 2016). Organizational antecedents were the most common factors to be examined
in the literature (46%). The second-most common factors regard the environment of
the organization (30%). Individual and innovation-specific factors were examined less
(15% and 9%, respectively). As there is a considerable variety in antecedents, those
with the largest share of studies examining them will be discussed here in detail. For
each type, the five most frequently researched factors will be presented. Table 4 sum-
marizes these insights and indicates whether, based on the results of the quantitative
studies reviewed, there is a correlation with the respective innovation types (positive
[+], negative [−], or inconsistent/neutral [~]). A positive or negative correlation is indi-
cated if the majority (at least 50%) of the reviewed studies come to that conclusion.

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

Table 4 Most frequently examined antecedents of innovation

Innovation type 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Process Leadership Resource Organizational Professionalism Urbanization

(+) slack (~) size (+) (+) (+)
Product/service Organizational Leadership Resource Bottom-up (+) Professionalism
size (+) (+) slack (~) (+)
Governance Resource External com- Internal com- Organizational Trust (~)
slack (~) munication munication size (~)
(~) (~)
Paradigm Organizational Urbanization Reformism Leadership Resource
size (+) (~) (~) (+) slack (~)
Majority finds positive (+), negative (–) or inconsistent/neutral (~) relationship

The most frequently examined antecedents by individual type of innovation consist

almost exclusively of organizational factors (60–80%).
For process innovations, three out of the five most frequent antecedents are orga-
nizational. Leadership is found by most of the quantitative studies to be positively
correlated with process innovations (e.g., Walker et al. 2010). Similarly, the size of
an organization often correlates positively with process innovations and is therefore
identified as a driver (e.g., Boyne et al. 2005). No study in this review’s sample finds
a negative significant correlation of organizational size or leadership with process
innovations (or any type of innovation). Resource or organizational slack, referring to
excess resource capabilities (financial or staff-related) available to the organization, is
not clearly identified as either a driver or a barrier of process innovation. For example,
Damanpour (1987) finds that public libraries in the United States adopt more pro-
cess innovations when operations do not consume all resources available, reasoning
that only then can these organizations invest in innovations. Walker (2007) identifies
resource slack as a barrier of process innovations in local English government. He
concludes that a lack of resources may encourage public organizations to adopt pro-
cess innovations (Walker 2007). Since budgets are regularly decided upon in public
organizations, the authors deem it appropriate to investigate this relationship in more
detail. Urbanization is almost exclusively found to positively affect process innova-
tions (e.g., Danziger and Dutton 1977). Wu et al. (2013) suggest that cost advantages
in urban areas drive process innovation there. On the individual or employee level,
professionalism, which includes indicators of education and other staff competen-
cies, is identified mainly as a driver of process innovations (e.g., Daft 1978). Lastly,
few studies examine innovation level antecedents of process innovations in public
organizations. This is notable because scholars have emphasized the importance of
innovation attributes, such as cost, complexity or relative advantage (e.g., Zaltman
et al. 1973; Rogers 2003). Perry and Danziger (1980) find, for example, that both the
complexity and the publicity of process innovations drive their adoption, while they
cannot identify a significant correlation with the riskiness of the innovation.
There is less diversity in the factors studied regarding product innovations. Four
organizational and one individual antecedent rank among the most frequently exam-
ined factors. Organizational size, leadership, resource slack, and professionalism

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

correlate with product innovations in the same manner as with process innovations.
An additional antecedent of product innovations is presented in several studies, con-
cerning the way innovations are conceived. Bottom-up structures, where innovation
is the result of trial and error or unplanned improvements by front line workers, are
conducive to product innovations (Arundel et al. 2015). Few studies (e.g., Gonzalez
et al. 2013) examine other structures, such as knowledge-scanning (proactive attitude
towards initiating innovation) or top-down organizations (innovation is implemented
by order). However, it is not clear whether this relationship exists exclusively for
bottom-up structures. Although both environmental factors are not as often studied in
the reviewed literature, some examples of findings are presented here. Walker (2006)
finds a significant positive correlation between external demand (i.e. by citizens) and
product innovations, but not for anticipated challenges or needs. No innovation level
antecedents were identified with regard to product innovations.
Antecedents of governance and paradigm innovations receive less attention in
the literature. For governance innovations, none of the most frequently examined
antecedents show a clear positive or negative correlation. The largest share of
antecedents (three out of five) is concerned with the organizational level. As for pro-
cess and product innovations, organizational size and resource slack are often studied.
Furthermore, internal and external communication and trust among employees are the
focus of several studies. Walker (2007), for example, finds no significant relationship
between either communication or the level of trust and governance innovations in local
authorities.
For paradigm innovations, despite the small sample, some results point in the same
direction. Organizational size and leadership are found to be positively correlated with
paradigm innovations (Hansen 2011). As for other innovation types, resource slack is
not found to be significantly correlated to paradigm innovations (Torugsa and Arundel
2016a). In contrast to process innovations, urbanization is not consistently found to
be a driver of paradigm innovations. For example, Hansen (2011) describes a positive
relationship in local government, while Wu et al. (2013) find no significant correlation
in a sample of innovation award-winning public organizations.
The most frequently investigated antecedents differ by innovation type. Table 5
presents findings on the most examined antecedents independent of type of innovation
(i.e. those on which at least five studies report findings). When reviewing these results,
the validity of each indication must however be evaluated considering the respective
number of studies that underlie it. In the following section, empirical findings on
outcomes of different innovation types are presented.

4.2.4 Outcomes of innovation types

Innovation outcomes are scarcely investigated in the public sector literature (De Vries
et al. 2016). This holds true even more for research on outcomes of individual types of
innovation. Only six (or 16%) of the studies reviewed provide insights on innovation
type outcomes. As is the case with antecedents, most research focuses on process
innovations. Several studies find that organizational performance is positively corre-
lated with process innovations (e.g., Naranjo-Gil 2009). For other innovation types,
the results are not as clear. Torugsa and Arundel (2016a) find a negative significant cor-

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

Table 5 Most frequently reported antecedents

Product/service Process Governance Paradigm

+ – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~

Organizational size 6 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 0
Leadership 3 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0
Resource slack 1 1 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 1
Professionalization 2 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Reformisms 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Urbanization 0 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
External communication 0 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0
Socio-economic status 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0
Most often found values are shown in bold
Number of studies that find positive (+), negative (–) or no significant (~) relationship
Numbers indicate the number of studies that find the respective relationship

relation for governance innovations and no significant correlation for both product and
paradigm innovations. Other outcomes under investigation include client satisfaction
(e.g., Arundel et al. 2015), service quality (e.g., Sousa et al. 2015), and cost reduction
(e.g., Torugsa and Arundel 2016a). As few outcomes are investigated by more than
a single study, it seems reasonable not to discuss such findings in the context of this
overview. Table 6 includes the relevant outcomes identified in the review process and
indicates any insights regarding innovation types. The last part of this section covers
research findings on the combinative effects of innovation types.

4.2.5 Combinative effects of innovation types

There is a comparably small share of the reviewed literature that deals with the com-
binative effects of different innovation types (6 studies or 16%). Results differ widely
and are at times contradictory. For example, Walker (2007) finds a positive signifi-
cant correlation between process and product innovations in English local authorities,
while Torugsa and Arundel (2016a) conclude the opposite from their data on Aus-
tralian government employees. Several studies argue, however, that the simultaneous
implementation of several innovation types leads to optimal innovation processes (e.g.,
Walker 2007; Damanpour et al. 2009). Damanpour et al. (2009) find that the simul-
taneous adoption of product and process innovations improves the performance of
public service organizations and that focusing on only one type of innovation has neg-
ative effects. Conversely, some studies find that governance innovation is negatively
correlated with other types of innovation (e.g., Wu et al. 2013). For paradigm innova-
tions, Torugsa and Arundel (2016a) find positive significant correlations with all other
innovation types. The following chapter discusses the results presented above.

5 Discussion

Considering the mapping of innovation typologies, the authors argue that the lack of
research dedicated to governance and paradigm innovations is problematic since a fine-

123
 Table 6 Outcomes of innovation types

Authors (year) Policy HR develop- Information Policy Organizational Social Cost reduction
control ment management implementa- performance services

123
tion

+ – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~

Arundel et al. (2015) AB

Bogacz-Wojtanowska (2011) C
Naranjo-Gil (2009) B
Sousa et al. (2015) B B B B B B
Torugsa and Arundel (2016a) B C AD BD AC
Walker et al. (2011) B
Authors (year) New clients Client satisfaction Client information Work quality Job satisfaction Cross-agency
access collaboration

+ – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~ + – ~

Arundel et al. (2015) AB AB AB

Bogacz-Wojtanowska (2011)
Naranjo-Gil (2009)
Sousa et al. (2015) A BCD A BCD
Torugsa and Arundel (2016a) ABD C D ABC ACD B
Walker et al. (2010)
Positive (+), negative (−), or no significant effects (~) are indicated for each type of innovation (if reported): product/service (A), process (B), governance (C), and paradigm
(D)
L. Buchheim et al.
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

grained analysis of public sector innovation requires innovation typologies that reflect
the special characteristics of public organizations (especially regarding governance
innovation).
Innovation types are examined inconsistently in public sector research. This is
arguably the result of an apparent lack of theoretical frameworks developed for public
sector innovation.
Despite inconsistencies in the “plethora of definitions” (Garcia and Calantone 2002,
p. 110) for innovation types, a consolidation seems desirable and attainable. Consider-
ing the importance that some scholars ascribe to governance and paradigm innovations
(e.g., Moore and Hartley 2008; Rowley et al. 2011), there seems to be a lack of research
dedicated to these types of innovation.

5.1 Antecedents of innovation types

As presented in the results section, the most frequently examined antecedents consist
almost exclusively of organizational factors. The authors propose that a reason for
this is that organizational factors are the ones that can potentially most effectively be
targeted by innovation management efforts. For the factor organizational size, it is
arguably often used as a control variable, especially when innovation types are not the
only focus of a study.
Regarding process innovations, leadership is found by most of the quantitative stud-
ies to be positively correlated (e.g., Walker et al. 2010). This implies that managers in
their way of motivating and controlling employees are able to influence the success-
ful adoption of process innovations directly. Educational measures could be directed
at managers to raise awareness of this relationship as well as to improve leadership
qualities. Wu et al. (2013) suggest cost advantages in urban areas as an explanation
for the positive correlation between urbanization and process innovations, but there
are potentially more characteristics of cities that have to be determined and tested in
more detail to identify such drivers. For example, one can think of easier access to
and exchange of information and expertise in urban areas compared to rural areas.
Based on the idea of professionalism driving process innovations (e.g., Daft 1978),
a rigorous selection process and employee training can be a management measure to
influence process innovations. The mixed results regarding the effect of resource slack
on process innovation call for a closer examination of this relationship, as both lines
of argument presented in the literature seem justifiable.
The positive correlations found between leadership, organizational size, profes-
sionalism, and resource slack and product innovations can be discussed in the same
manner as for process innovations. It seems, that similar characteristics of the two
types lead to similar drivers and barriers. Managers could take advantage of this by
directing resources to simultaneously develop process and product innovations. Find-
ings suggest that bottom-up structures are conducive to product innovations (Arundel
et al. 2015). This, in the eyes of the authors, is due to the direct exposure to citizens’
service requirements, which is likely to be less pronounced in upper management.
More research of other organizational structures and their potential effect on prod-
uct innovations are necessary to reinforce this relationship. Considering these results,

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

establishing a bottom-up structure while providing for other drivers such as leadership
represents a potential conflict.
A lack of internal communication indicates a concentration of the innovation activ-
ity to a specific department of the organization. It is counterintuitive that external
communication should not be related to innovations in governance, as this is often a
process involving outside stakeholders (Moore and Hartley 2008). Trust may hinder
the initiation of governance innovations due to fear of irritating colleagues or it may
create an atmosphere where new ideas can be suggested without repercussions. As
routines and channels for communication within and outside of a public body can
likely be directly introduced by management, the authors argue that this relationship
deserves more research attention. Employee trust is a more deeply rooted issue and
may therefore be more difficult to address. At the same time, however, it still seems
reasonable to study this factor as it potentially has a significant effect on innovation
adoption.
It is difficult to discuss the results on paradigm innovations due to the small num-
ber of studies investigating similar factors’ relationships with this type. The positive
correlation found with organizational size and leadership seems similar to that with
process and product innovations. Urbanization is not consistently found to be a driver
of paradigm innovation. Paradigm shifts, in the eyes of the authors, do not require as
much (resource) input from the outside, which could render such innovations rather
independent of the necessity to obtain external means (lower cost of such in urban
regions being the main argument, see above). However, the discussion in the context
of process innovations holds true for paradigm innovations: a fine-grained analysis of
correlations in urban settings is deemed appropriate.

5.2 Outcomes of innovation types

With regard to outcomes of innovation types more research is required to clarify the
effects of different innovation types on performance. It seems reasonable that process
innovations most directly affect such measures, while other types might target goals
that are potentially detrimental to efficiency gains or other performance indicators.
In the process of evaluating innovation measures in public organizations, a consid-
eration of outcomes in relation to (previously formulated) goals is arguably crucial for
the development of innovation management strategies and therefore deserves more
attention by public administration scholars.

5.3 Combinative effects of innovation types

More research across all types of innovation would facilitate tracing positive and nega-
tive combinative effects of innovation types and confirming or disconfirming singular
findings in the current literature. Though little research has focused on combinative
effects, the results point to the importance of a detailed understanding of innovation
type interactions. The positive correlation found between paradigm innovations and
other types would confirm the findings of Rowley et al. (2011) that paradigm innova-
tions, as a result of a fundamental change in perspective, potentially cause a multitude

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

of process, product, and governance innovations. Governance innovation is found to

be negatively correlated with other types. This confirms Moore and Hartley’s (2008)
argument that such innovations are directed to fundamentally different issues (e.g.,
giving up responsibility or control in order to increase citizen participation) whose
pursuit is not related and potentially opposed to other areas of innovation. Innova-
tion management arguably ought to incorporate the idea of composing the appropriate
combination of innovation types.

6 Conclusion

6.1 Summary and contribution

This systematic literature review presents and discusses conceptual as well as empir-
ical research on antecedents, outcomes, and combinative effects of innovation types
in public organizations. It points out tendencies backed by multiple sources as well
as areas where more research might be needed to build meaningful theories on which
academics as well as managers may base their work and develop effective innovation
strategies for the public sector. A mapping tool is used to categorize the multitude of
typologies used in the literature according to four innovation types: product/service,
process, governance, and paradigm. Most research has focused on the former two,
while the latter two are seldom considered. Antecedents are at the center of most lit-
erature investigating innovation typologies. The most frequently studied antecedents
are organizational factors. While organizational size is usually positively correlated to
all types of innovation, other factors may affect innovation types differently. Research
on innovation type outcomes mostly focuses on performance measures. Combining
several innovation types is often found to be beneficial to innovation processes. How-
ever, governance innovations may be negatively correlated to other types. Although
the small body of research seems to be an inappropriate basis for tangible management
recommendations, it can be concluded that managers should pay close attention to their
organization’s innovation activities. They should attempt to identify those innovation
types which most effectively reach the goals formulated, exploiting synergies as well
as empowering drivers, reducing barriers, and evaluating outcomes.
The contribution of this review is threefold. First, it offers an aggregate perspective
on what research has focused on so far conceptually and what insights have been
established and supported by numerous scholars empirically. Second, it highlights
areas of divergent findings in need of consolidation as well as research gaps, all of
which may deserve more attention in future investigations. Lastly, it guides the reader
to those aspects of innovation type research that may be of importance to managers
of public organizations.

6.2 Limitations and future research agenda

This review comes with limitations. The literature search and selection process depend
on subjective judgment. Similarly, the re-categorization of innovation types and the

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

consolidation of results in order to identify tendencies decrease each study’s explana-

tory power for the sake of presenting a field of research in a meaningful way. Lastly,
the small sample size and regional homogeneity of the literature analyzed must be
considered when interpreting the results of this review.
From an analysis of the current literature on types of public sector innovation it
seems that although some research has been dedicated to public sector innovation, the
concept of innovation types has not received sufficient attention. Usually, the focus
does not lie on the whole range of innovation types, which makes it challenging to
distinguish between features of innovation in general and characteristics of individual
types of innovation. To increase comparability and facilitate theory-building based on a
large body of relevant literature, research would benefit from standardized definitions
of innovation types, such as those suggested by this review’s mapping tool, which
should be simultaneously investigated for any given data sample.
Similarly, the individual relationships with antecedents, outcomes, and other types
of innovation require a clearer focus by future research. The variables investigated in
terms of their relationship with different types of innovation must be the same for a
large number of data samples in order to provide findings on effects with explanatory
power. The most relevant and often applied factors in the literature can be found in this
review. There is a clear focus on antecedents and organizational variables and a lack of
attention on outcome and combinative as well as environmental variables. Therefore, a
comprehensive set of variables should be developed, outlining what organizational and
environmental factors may be of interest to managers of public sector organizations
in terms of both antecedent and outcome variables (see Tables 4, 5, 6 for examples).
The existing literature could provide more meaningful insights if data were used
in a meta-analysis. This article refrains from performing such an analysis mainly due
to its small sample size. A meta-analysis would require uniformly defined typologies.
To that end, individual studies’ typologies would have to be re-examined and re-
categorized systematically and according to standardized definitions. Likewise, a set
of variables to be investigated would need to be defined. Here, the available data would
probably limit the possible factors to be included. As could be seen in this review’s
sample, many variables reflect the same factors but are named or defined (slightly)
differently, so that a detailed recoding procedure may be required, outlining specific
inclusion and exclusion criteria for each factor to be investigated. This review may
provide the framework according to which such a re-categorization procedure can be
conducted, as well as what (kinds of) factors may be investigated on an aggregate
level.
More cross-country and non-Western data samples from a more diverse range of
public organizations could be used in the future. This review’s sample shows a clear
focus on the US, the UK, and some other Western countries as well as on governmental
agencies. Expanding the regional and organizational focus of future studies would
enhance the generalizability of any effects found, as potential differences in culture,
political system, and other important environmental and organizational factors could
be controlled for.
Public sector research can provide organizations with the tools to develop powerful
innovation strategies in order to adapt to an increasingly complex and dynamic envi-

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

ronment. The concept of innovation typologies may prove to be of great help on that
path.

References
Aiken M, Hage J (1971) The organic organization and innovation. Sociology 5(1):63–82
Aiken M, Bacharach SB, French JL (1980) Organizational structure, work process, and proposal making
in administrative bureaucracies. Acad Manag J 23(4):631–652
Arundel A, Huber D (2013) From too little to too much innovation? Issues in measuring innovation in the
public sector. Struct Change Econ Dyn 27:146–159
Arundel A, Casali L, Hollanders H (2015) How European public sector agencies innovate: the use of bottom-
up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation methods. Res Policy 44(7):1271–1282
Baregheh A, Rowley J, Sambrook S (2009) Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Manag
Decis 47(8):1323–1339
Becker SW, Whisler TL (1967) The innovative organization: a selective view of current theory and research.
J Bus 40(4):462–469
Bernier L, Hafsi T, Deschamps C (2015) Environmental determinants of public sector innovation: a study
of innovation awards in Canada. Public Manag Rev 17(6):834–856
Bingham RD, McNaught TP (1976) The adoption of innovation by local government. D. C. Heath and
Company, Lexington
Bloch C, Bugge MM (2013) Public sector innovation—from theory to measurement. Struct Change Econ
Dyn 27:133–145
Block JH, Fisch CO, Van Praag M (2017) The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical
evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship. Ind Innov
24(1):61–95
Bogacz-Wojtanowska E (2011) Innovative public services as a result of cooperation of public and non-
government organisations. Contemp Manag Q/Wspólczesne Zarzadzanie 4:105–114
Boyne GA, Gould-Williams JS, Law J, Walker RM (2005) Explaining the adoption of innovation: an
empirical analysis of public management reform. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 23(3):419–435
Brudney JL, Selden SC (1995) The adoption of innovation by smaller local governments: the case of
computer technology. Am Rev Public Adm 25(1):71–86
Byrne J, Marx G (2011) Technological innovations in crime prevention and policing. A review of the
research on implementation and impact. J Police Stud 20(3):17–40
Carassus D, Favoreu C, Gardey D (2014) Factors that determine or influence managerial innovation in
public contexts: the case of local performance management. Public Org Rev 14(2):245–266
Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic
review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47(6):1154–1191
Daft RL (1978) A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Acad Manag J 21(2):193–210
Daft RL (1982) Bureaucratic versus nonbureaucratic structure and the process of innovation and change.
Res Soc Org 1:129–166
Daft RL, Becker SW (1978) The innovative organization. Elsevier, New York
Damanpour F (1987) The adoption of technological, administrative, and ancillary innovations: impact of
organizational factors. J Manag 13(4):675–688
Damanpour F (1988) Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process. Commun Res 15(5):545–567
Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.
Acad Manag J 34(3):555–590
Damanpour F (1992) Organizational size and innovation. Org Stud 13(3):375–402
Damanpour F, Evan WM (1984) Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of “organizational
lag”. Adm Sci Q 29(3):392–409
Damanpour F, Schneider M (2006) Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: effects of envi-
ronment, organization and top managers. Br J Manag 17(3):215–236
Damanpour F, Szabat KA, Evan WM (1989) The relationship between types of innovation and organizational
performance. J Manag Stud 26(6):587–602
Damanpour F, Walker RM, Avellaneda CN (2009) Combinative effects of innovation types and organiza-
tional performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations. J Manag Stud 46(4):650–675

123
 L. Buchheim et al.

Danziger JN, Dutton WH (1977) Computers as an innovation in American local governments. Commun
ACM 20(12):945–956
De Vries H, Bekkers V, Tummers L (2016) Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future
research agenda. Public Adm 94(1):146–166
De Vries H, Tummers L, Bekkers V (2018) The diffusion and adoption of public sector innovations: a
meta-synthesis of the literature. Perspect Public Manag Gov 1:159–176
Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The Sage
handbook of organizational research methods. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 671–689
Dewar RD, Dutton JE (1986) The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical analysis.
Manag Sci 32(11):1422–1433
Downs GW, Mohr LB (1976) Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Adm Sci Q 21(4):700–714
Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research.
Manag Rev Q 68(2):103–106
Flynn N (2007) Public sector management, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Francis D, Bessant J (2005) Targeting innovation and implications for capability development. Technovation
25(3):171–183
Garcia R, Calantone R (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness
terminology: a literature review. J Prod Innov Manag 19(2):110–132
Gonzalez R, Llopis J, Gasco J (2013) Innovation in public services: the case of Spanish local government.
J Bus Res 66(10):2024–2033
Hansen MB (2011) Antecedents of organizational innovation: the diffusion of new public management into
Danish local government. Public Adm 89(2):285–306
Hartley J (2005) Innovation in governance and public services: past and present. Public Money Manag
25(1):27–34
Hartley J (2006) Innovation and its contribution to improvement: a review for policymakers, policy advisers,
managers and researchers. Department for Communities and Local Government, London
Hinnant CC, O’Looney JA (2003) Examining pre-adoption interest in online innovations: an exploratory
study of e-service personalization in the public sector. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 50(4):436–447
Hjalager AM (2010) A review of innovation research in tourism. Tour Manag 31(1):1–12
Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ (1981) Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational,
and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Acad
Manag J 24(4):689–713
King WR (2000) Measuring police innovation: issues and measurement. Polic Int J Police Strateg Manag
23(3):303–317
Knight KE (1967) A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. J Bus 40(4):478–496
Lægreid P, Roness PG, Verhoest K (2011) Explaining the innovative culture and activities of state agencies.
Org Stud 32(10):1321–1347
Moore M, Hartley J (2008) Innovations in governance. Public Manag Rev 10(1):3–20
Naranjo-Gil D (2009) The influence of environmental and organizational factors on innovation adoptions:
consequences for performance in public sector organizations. Technovation 29(12):810–818
Osborne SP, Brown L (2011) Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word
that would be king? Public Adm 89(4):1335–1350
Pärna O, von Tunzelmann N (2007) Innovation in the public sector: key features influencing the development
and implementation of technologically innovative public sector services in the UK, Denmark, Finland
and Estonia. Inf Polit 12(3):109–125
Perry JL, Danziger JN (1980) The adoptability of innovations: an empirical assessment of computer appli-
cations in local governments. Adm Soc 11(4):461–492
Piening EP (2011) Insights into the process dynamics of innovation implementation: the case of public
hospitals in Germany. Public Manag Rev 13(1):127–157
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Simon & Schuster, New York
Rowley J, Baregheh A, Sambrook S (2011) Towards an innovation-type mapping tool. Manag Decis
49(1):73–86
Schoeman M, Baxter D, Goffin K, Micheli P (2012) Commercialization partnerships as an enabler of UK
public sector innovation: the perfect match? Public Money Manag 32(6):425–432
Schroll A, Mild A (2012) A critical review of empirical research on open innovation adoption. J für
Betriebswirtschaft 62(2):85–118

123
Innovation types in public sector organizations: a…

Smith AC, Taebel DA (1985) Administrative innovation in municipal government. Int J Public Adm
7(2):149–177
Sousa MDM, Ferreira VDRS, Najberg E, Medeiros JJ (2015) Portraying innovation in the public service
of Brazil: frameworks, systematization and characterization. Revista de Administração (São Paulo)
50(4):460–476
Torugsa NA, Arundel A (2016a) The nature and incidence of workgroup innovation in the Australian public
sector: evidence from the Australian 2011 state of the service survey. Aust J Public Adm 75(2):202–221
Torugsa N, Arundel A (2016b) Complexity of innovation in the public sector: a workgroup-level analysis
of related factors and outcomes. Public Manag Rev 18(3):392–416
Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of user innovation. J für Betrieb-
swirtschaft 55(1):63–78
Walker RM (2006) Innovation type and diffusion: an empirical analysis of local government. Public Adm
84(2):311–335
Walker RM (2007) An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental
characteristics: towards a configuration framework. J Public Adm Res Theor 18(4):591–615
Walker RM (2014) Internal and external antecedents of process innovation: a review and extension. Public
Manag Rev 16(1):21–44
Walker RM, Damanpour F, Devece CA (2010) Management innovation and organizational performance:
the mediating effect of performance management. J Public Adm Res Theor 21(2):367–386
Windrum P (2008) Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services. In: Windrum P, Koch P (eds) Innova-
tion in public sector services: entrepreneurship, creativity and management. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham, pp 3–22
Windrum P, García-Goñi M (2008) A neo-Schumpeterian model of health services innovation. Res Policy
37(4):649–672
Wolfe RA (1994) Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested research directions. J Manag
Stud 31(3):405–431
Wu J, Ma L, Yang Y (2013) Innovation in the Chinese public sector: typology and distribution. Public Adm
91(2):347–365
Zaltman G, Duncan R, Holbek J (1973) Innovations and organizations. John Wiley & Sons, New York

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

123