The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1756-669X.htm

Capacity
Capacity development for development
innovation in the public sector for innovation
Klas Palm
Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Uppsala Universitet,
Uppsala, Sweden
Received 18 September 2018
Revised 4 April 2019
Abstract 26 July 2019
Accepted 30 October 2019
Purpose – The public sector seems to have a culture and structure for control and improvement of ongoing
activities but lacks the culture and structures for innovation. Thus, capacity development among public
sector employees can be an important method for the development of better conditions for innovation. The
purpose of this paper is to identify key factors affecting the achievement of good results when municipal and
regional organisations carry out capacity development of employees with the aim of creating greater leeway
for innovation in their organisation.
Design/methodology/approach – The study behind this paper has looked at four different concrete
cases, which have applied essentially different methods for capacity building for innovation issues. A
qualitative research method was used. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 39
respondents. The analysis of the information revealed in the interviews was carried out through a thematic
analysis in three steps.
Findings – The study shows that action learning makes it easier for employees to turn knowledge generated
through action into reality. The study also shows that it seems difficult to work from a digital communication
platform if the platform is not combined with physical meetings. The study shows that committed and hands-on
leadership is very important, that there is a need for strategic communication related to the capacity development
effort including clarification and definition of what innovation means in the local context.
Originality/value – This paper shows a number of important aspects to consider when municipalities and
regional organisations plan their capacity development initiatives in innovation. By taking these into account
increases the ability of public organisations to develop and adapt their operations and deliver high quality
and value-adding services to the citizens.
Keywords Capacity building, Workplace learning, Service delivery, Innovation management,
Public management, Innovation in services
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The public sector of today is facing a wide range of challenges. Daglio et al. (2014) argues
that the public sector in many countries is approaching the limit of what they are able to
achieve with the existing processes and service delivery systems. Albury (2011), Brorström
(2015) and Wihlman (2014) argue that it is not enough to have incremental development but
that public sector also needs to explore new products, processes and services to meet the
challenges.
This is in line with what Juran (1964) states, namely, that all managerial activities should
be directed either at:
 control with boundaries within which the work can be improved, i.e. prevention of
big changes; and
International Journal of Quality
 breaking through into new levels of performance. and Service Sciences
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1756-669X
Leeway for both perspectives is important for the ability to achieve quality in the long run. DOI 10.1108/IJQSS-09-2018-0081
IJQSS However, Wihlman (2014) argues that public management has higher capacity for the
development of ongoing processes than for innovation. So, to be able to deliver both
perspectives that Juran writes about, the public sector needs to develop radically new
working methods and services, i.e. innovations. Therefore, it is important to create enabling
conditions for innovation.
Naqshbandi and Tabche (2018) notes that certain leadership styles, such as transactional
leadership, directive leadership and aversive leadership have been found to act as barriers to
innovation while empowering leadership fosters creativity and flexibility. One way to work
with empowering leadership is to work with continuous learning in working life and to work
with the employees’ skills development.
Hislop et al. (2018) argues that learning at the workplace creates confidence, and
contributes to self-esteem and empowerment in the professional role (p. 106). On the whole,
capacity development among public sector employees can be an important method for the
development of better conditions for innovation. This is something that several
municipalities and public-sector organisations are aware of. However, how this capacity
development best can be carried out is not fully described in previous research.
This paper contributes knowledge based on empirically gained experiences from
different types of capacity development methods aimed at greater leeway for innovation in
public sector organisations. The paper has its starting point in the following research
question:

RQ1. What are the perceived key factors affecting achievement of good results when
municipal and regional organisations carry out capacity development of
employees with the aim of creating greater leeway for innovation in their
organisation?
This main question is answered by two sub-questions:

Q1. What are the perceived results of different methods of capacity development?
Q2. What general enabling factors for capacity development for innovation are
perceived by the participants?
See Figure 1 illustrating the relation between the questions.

2. Literature and theory

To clarify the research question, it is useful to define and describe certain key concepts. For
example, one might define what the concept of a “good result” really means in this context.
This study defines a “good result” as greater leeway for innovation within the organisation
to which the participants in the capacity development belong. This because former scholars
(Wihlman, 2014) state that it is greater leeway for innovation that is needed to increase the
ability to explore new products, processes and services to meet the public sector challenges.
The concept of “greater leeway” is defined in this paper as an extensive ability to act in
new ways within the organisation, i.e. act in new ways so innovative processes, products or
services can be invented and implemented. The definition is based on the fact that Moore
and Hartley (2008) stress the need for including both idea generation and implementation as
parts of the concept of innovation.
The ability to act in new ways can be based on knowledge and understanding of a given
topic or challenge, the ability to see solutions, commitment and willingness to participate
and develop the organisation. However, the ability to act in new ways does not necessarily
mean that one de facto acts (Almers, 2009).
 Overall queson
Capacity
What are the perceived key factors
Greater leeway for innovaon
development
affecng achievement of good results
when municipal and regional for innovation
organisaons carry out capacity
development of employees with the
aim of creang greater leeway for
innovaon in their organisaon?

Two sub-quesons
Method A Method B Method C Method D
RQ 1: What are the perceived for capacity for capacity for capacity
for capacity Figure 1.
results of different methods of
development development development development
capacity development? A schematic picture
of the relationship
between the research
RQ 2: What general enabling factors
questions behind the
for capacity development for study presented in
innovaon are perceived by the this article
parcipants?

Another key concept for understanding the aim of this paper is “key affecting factors”,
which in this paper mean major factors that affect whether the educational effort provides
the ability to act in new ways.
The concept of “capacity development” may also need to be clarified. Capacity
development can be described in different ways. For example, Billett and Hodge (2016)
argue that:
The changing nature of work, requirements for occupational practice and ways in which work is
undertaken mean that workers need to learn across their working lives in ways that build their
capacities to respond to these changes and position them as productive and viable employees
(p. 10).
Hence, there is a need to intentionally develop the capacities required for continued delivery
of relevant and high-quality services.
Furthermore, previous research by Watkins et al. (2019) on success factors for
learning at work shows that learning by doing, i.e. action learning, can be a success
factor for capacity development. They mean that action learning is particularly
effective because it operates at multiple levels including individuals, groups and
systems.
Also, DuFour et al. (2016) stress that employees have an easier way of turning knowledge
generated through action into reality, that the most powerful learning often occurs in a
context of taking action and that engagement and experience are the most effective teachers.
It seems to be that learning by doing often develops a deeper and more profound knowledge
and greater commitment than learning by reading, listening, planning or thinking (DuFour
et al., 2016).
This is also in line with the Swedish Research Council’s research on education, adult
learning and learning in working life (VR, 2014). The Swedish Research Council finds that
there once existed a narrow interpretation of learning as memorising information and facts,
while today it is more about developing skills for development and meaning-creating
activities. One example of action learning is design-led processes that have been identified
as an enabling method for the development of innovation capacity in the public sector
(Bason, 2010; Bessant and Maher, 2009).
IJQSS Naqshbandi et al. (2019) also stress that an organisation with a leadership that
strengthens employees’ own ability to participate in development processes positively
affects the organisation’s innovation performance.
On the whole, it can be difficult to accurately determine what capacity development as a
method of achieving greater leeway for innovation is. Employees’ own actions in the process
make it difficult to distinguish learning from work with actual innovation implementation
activities. Van Noy et al. (2016) argue that informal learning processes through participating
in work-based learning may well be the best way to achieve capacity development in
innovation. Employees who learn this way also often have better relationships with
colleagues and managers. The definition of capacity development in this paper is therefore:
knowledge development with the purpose of generating an extensive ability to act in new
ways within the organisation.
As the work of capacity development may be through the method of action learning, i.e.
by getting the participants to carry out an innovation process, it might be interesting to look
at previous research on success factors for development of innovation processes in public
administration. One possible compilation and description of previous research on key
factors for innovation processes in the public sector is the following 13 factors:
(1) A committed and hands-on leadership.
(2) A permissive organisational culture with leaders who tolerate failure.
(3) A shared vision among those involved in the innovation process.
(4) Paying attention to the needs and expectations of users and frontline staff.
(5) Promoting formal creativity techniques.
(6) Structure to support further development of innovations, e.g. incubators, labs and
innovation intermediaries.
(7) Internal as well as external networking.
(8) Overcoming short-term delivery pressure.
(9) Time to try out the innovation.
(10) Leeway for experimentation with the innovation.
(11) Design-led innovation processes.
(12) Knowledge support to those who will use the innovation.
(13) Financial and human resources (Palm and Algehed, 2017).

There is also ever-increasing research on e-learning and its strengths and weaknesses.
Scholars have identified various barriers for e-learning in public administration at the local
level as a training method (Stoffregen et al., 2016) and have elevated the needs to develop the
method. Such development includes the use of blended learning, with a plethora of
documented models, cases and examples involving the mixing of face-to-face with online
learning (Bonk and Graham, 2006). Blended learning is described by several researchers as a
method likely to emerge as the predominant model of the future (Watson, 2008; Graham,
2013; Siemens, 2014).

3. Research methods and data collection

The research behind this paper aim to understand phenomena through an interpretation of
participants perception. The research was, thus, based on a phenomenological idea. The
phenomenology is essentially the study of individuals’ experience of the situation around
that individual (Koch, 1996; Scruton, 1995). The phenomenological idea, and the research
questions are of such a nature that a qualitative research approach has been chosen as Capacity
preferable. This is based on Kumar (2019), who argue that “Qualitative research are more development
appropriate for exploring the variation and diversity in any aspect in social life” (p. 171.)
Furthermore, the study tries to explain what happens in the area studied through an
for innovation
inductive grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1994).
To answer the research question, two sub-questions were used. The first to identify
different experienced results achieved by four different capacity development methods. The
second to identify experienced enabling factors for the capacity development. Empirical
data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 39 respondents almost equally
divided between the four different capacity development initiatives. The questions used as
starting points were:

Q3. Can you see that you have used gained knowledge in processes aiming at greater
leeway for innovation at your workplace?
Q4. Can you use in practice what you learn?
Q5. Do you perceive the methodology as well adapted to the aim of your participation?
Q6. What were the enabling factors for your capacity development and what can be
further developed with the methodology?
The empirical data is gathered from four different initiatives working with different
methods for capacity development. The selection criteria for these four different initiatives
were that the initiatives had staff as target group, that the methods of capacity development
distinguished between the different initiatives and that it was possible to study initiatives in
the years 2016 and 2017. All four initiatives were carried out in Sweden. The initiatives
studied were carried out in two municipalities (M1), (M2) and two regional authorities (R1),
(R2).
The selection of the 39 respondents from the four initiatives was made through a
strategic selection based on the ambition to receive information from both capacity
development managers and participants, different experience in working with innovations,
different engagement in the capacity development initiatives, different genders, different
ages and both participants who chose to leave the capacity development initiatives and who
carried out the entire initiative. The interviews were conducted either face to face or over the
phone. The interviews were conducted between October 2016 and February 2017. The four
initiatives are described below:
(1) M1: In 2015 and 2016, M1 was working on competence development regarding
innovation for all top managers in the municipality’s management team. This led
to the municipality offering a specific competence development day for the
municipality’s managers at all levels on the topic of innovation management. Some
administrations in the municipality subsequently continued to deepen their work
on innovation management. In this, the business department of the municipality
offered competence development and support. Competence development in
innovation was carried out through a combination of internal films, over the
internet, workshops and mentorship. The municipality’s business department also
collaborated with an external organisational consultant in these efforts. The
consultant conducted a number of seminars and workshops with part of the
municipality’s staff. The external consultant worked with methodologies such as
appreciative enquiry, design methodology and scenario planning.
IJQSS (2) M2: The municipality’s management noticed that interdisciplinary work fuels
more innovative ideas. Consequently, M2 invited other municipalities in the region
to a common innovation process in 2016 with the aim of developing their capacity
and working on existing challenges in their respective operations. The work was
conducted in 2016 in the form of workshops where different groups met, developed
capacity and worked with their challenges. Nine different innovation groups (work
teams) with different identified development needs were included in the work. The
participants (staff from different municipalities and the region were trained in
design methodology and met at four workshops over a nine-month period.
Between the meetings, the teams conducted their own research and analysis work
at home. The idea was that participants acquire skills and become the bearers of
the methodology through practical participation – and that they also contribute to
continued dissemination of the innovation development methodology within their
organisations. The process was managed by two project managers employed by
the municipality who, prior to the capacity development initiative, underwent
method training in service design processes.
(3) R1: The regional organisation “R&D and the Regional Association gave the local
University, the Department of Innovation Management, the task of implementing a
training programme in innovation management for staff in the regional
organisation and at some municipalities. From the University, nine lecturers were
involved in this training programme. Participants in the programme were
politicians, managers, development strategists and quality managers in
municipalities and in the regional authority. The training was conducted with
three parallel tracks, namely, the manager track, the innovation leader track and
the politician track. The manager track was aimed at giving managers a deeper
understanding of the relationship between the organisation’s structures and
innovation processes. The innovation leader track was intended to lead to the
development of the ability to plan and implement creative processes to increase
employee innovation skills. The politician track was intended to lead to an
understanding of the needs and conditions for strategies and decisions related to
innovation.
The training programme was conducted with ten meetings with innovation
leaders, five meetings for managers from participating organisations and two
meetings with politicians. The meetings were carried out at about four-week
intervals. Between the meetings, innovation leaders worked with different tasks
related to the knowledge development process.
(4) R2: The regional authority has the goal to reach a cultural change at the regional
level by 2020. The idea is to achieve a change in the sense that they have a new
approach to innovation in which the individual is focused and allowed to cooperate
more broadly through open platforms and meeting places.
The ability to lead innovation processes has been found to be important. Therefore,
in 2015-2017, an initiative was undertaken in cooperation between private
companies and R2 to develop a web-based innovation management platform. The
platform was running open innovation processes where more than 80 per cent of
innovation management took place on the digital platform. The initiative was
implemented with a web portal providing material in innovation management. The
initiative also included capacity development through educational modules and
coaching via online meetings and some consultation with physical meetings with
the target group.
 The target group of the initiative was mainly small- and medium-sized companies Capacity
but also public sector employees in the region’s healthcare providers. During the development
project, a continuous process was underway to change and adapt the content of the
initiative to users with different levels of knowledge and needs.
for innovation

3.1 Analytical method

The data collected during the 39 interviews contain many different answers and opinions.
To answer the research questions, two separate analyses were done. Both using a thematic
three-step analysis. The work of the thematic analysis was inspired by Braun and Clarke
(2006), Silverman (2010) and Ritchie et al. (2013).
In the first step, relevant information from the respondents was sorted out in relation to
the research question. In the second step, the relevant interview material was analysed to
identify the most prominent views. Each interview was analysed separately and
respondents’ statements related to the research questions were sorted and written down in a
matrix. In the third step, the statements from the various respondents were compared, and
statements of the same type were put in a common category. When new types of statements
occurred, they formed new categories and thereby the number of categories expanded.
To get answers to the first sub-question, the thematic analysis of the empirical-data-
related statements related to the overall perception of the competence development effort
and whether the capacity development efforts were perceived to contribute or not contribute,
to greater leeway for innovation in their organisation. The results of the analysis are
presented in the first sub-chapter (4.1).
To get answers to the second sub-question, other statements from interviewees were
analysed and categorised, resulting in perceived enabling factors for the ability to achieve
good results in capacity development. These factors are presented in the second sub-chapter
(4.2).
Further, a system analysis enables us to gain a richer picture of the studied phenomena.
Subsequently, a soft system analysis has been used. An analysis which can be described as
an organised way of bringing some clarity in complex situations. Checkland and Scholes
(2007) describe the soft system methodology as a system of thinking based on the
assumption that there is no absolute truth to be described and the soft system model is
flexible in use and broad in scope. Further, Jackson (2003) argues that the analysis in soft
systems approaches should consist of building up the richest possible picture of the studied
phenomena. The analysis in the study behind this article has, thus, also been inspired by one
of Checkland and Scholes’s (2007) most used tool, namely, a rich picture describing key
results.

4. Results and analysis

This chapter presents the results of the collected data. The findings are reported in relation
to the two sub-questions.

4.1 Perceived results of different methods of capacity development

This section describes how the respondents felt that the capacity development efforts
contributed or did not contribute, to greater leeway for innovation in their organisation.
Several of the interviewees in M1 said that the leadership development programme
contributed to insight about the need for innovation, but not knowledge about how i.e. how
to develop an enabling environment for practicing innovation development. Furthermore,
the organisation’s managers said that it is generally difficult to get employees to work with
change processes and that enabling structures are needed for the innovative work to be
IJQSS done. In conclusion, the respondents said that the implemented capacity development
initiative was too fragmented and resulted in greater leeway for innovation only to a limited
extent.
The interviewees in M2 said that employees received concrete tools for creation of leeway
for innovation through the capacity development initiative. The respondents said that the
user’s perspective was taken into account, which leads to increased job satisfaction, as well
as greater leeway for innovation. This is achieved through increased insight into
development needs and opportunities. The interviewees generally expressed that they
through the capacity development initiative both contributed to an innovative operational
development and that they themselves learned a method for how to work with radical
operational development further on.
In R1, managers, innovation leaders and politicians in the region said that they gained
new perspectives and knowledge about how to work with change processes. The work
brought about new ideas and tools for working on innovation. However, the effects are at a
knowledge level. The interviews indicated that many of the development projects – which
are ongoing after the capacity development initiative in their respective organisations –
would have been done anyway, but now they do it with the tools they learned during the
course. The parts of the capacity building that the participants themselves found the most
useful are stakeholder analysis and methods for collecting data among target groups.
However, it is believed that the capacity development did not reach all the way to creating
greater leeway for innovation.
In R2, The interviews indicated that the project had difficulty in achieving a good result
through capacity development with the aim of creating greater leeway for innovation. It
turned out to be very difficult to get the digital platform to work and stand on its own.
However, the respondents argued that the work contributed to increased insight about the
need to work systematically with innovation.

4.2 Experienced enabling factors for capacity development in innovation

Through the thematic analysis, the collected data resulted in eleven identified key enabling
factors for achievement of good results when municipal and regional organisations carry out
capacity development with the aim of creating greater leeway for innovation in their
organisation. These are listed below, complemented by a number of illustrative quotes from
the interviewees. The quotes exemplify the statements that form the basis of the essential
factors. The quotes are shown in italics. There is no ranking between the presented factors.
Thus, it is a random presentation of the eleven factors.
4.2.1 Insight into the need for innovation. An expression often mentioned during the
interviews was that one has a “lack of time”. Organisations and companies focus on the
process of ongoing operations and have little or no room for radical business development.
Many of the interviewees argued that there is virtually no room for organisational
development at all and no time for work processes concerning innovation.
A foundation of the success of capacity development is to create an understanding of
why it is important to work with the actual issue or in this case, why leeway for innovation
is important. If a target group does not understand why it is important, it is meaningless to
work on how it should be carried out.
Respondent from M1: Usually, you don’t think you have time to work with development;
you have to understand why it’s important.
Respondent from R2: It’s about maturity and insight into needs.
4.2.2 Management commitment and support. Several interviewees stressed that one
cannot work with either capacity development or innovation. The working day is full of
already ongoing activities. Several of the interviewees, therefore, stressed how important it Capacity
is to relieve participants in capacity development programmes from regular tasks so that development
participants can spend the necessary time on this capacity development.
Thus, it becomes important to consider what signals the management sends and how
for innovation
management shows that competence development about innovation is a prioritised activity.
Ett viktigt sätt att peka på vikten av komepetensutveckling inom innovation är att
managfement själv deltar I kompetensiutveckingsprocesser.
The interviewees also emphasised the need for managers to support capacity
development in innovation processes. Innovation management needs to be a component of a
regular executive education programme.
Respondent from M2: It would be good if we got a political mission. A clear political
position.
Respondent from R1: You need to be relieved of regular tasks, which unfortunately is not
on the agenda.
4.2.3 Develop the understanding of what the concept of innovation stands for. The
concept of “innovation” opens up for different expectations and images of what innovative
work may mean. By focusing on innovation, without a thematic focus, the respondents said
that they could feel that it is the method (to work innovatively) that controls the
development need and not the opposite. The need for the method (i.e. to be innovative) can
be perceived as more important than the need to develop a particular topic.
In some contexts, the notion of innovation can be perceived as fluttery or worn. Some of
the interviewees argued that the concept of innovation is a loaded word that may
discourages many employees. At the same time, there is often a high expectation inherent in
the concept – an expectation that it will change people’s lives. It is, therefore, important to
de-dramatize the term and to explain in concrete terms what it is about. It may be important
to be clear about what the term stands for, or simply not use the term.
Respondent from M1: I toned down the word “innovation” to get everyone to feel involved.
Respondent from M2: Some felt pressured to be forced into this and then it was difficult.
The initiative can be perceived a little strange, like having a method to be filled with something,
not the opposite.
Respondent from R2: It is not possible to underestimate the importance of conducting a
fundamental discussion of what innovation is.
4.2.4 Although innovation implies radical change, it can be wise to encourage
participants to experiment and start with incremental changes. By encouraging participants
to, at their own workplace, work experimentally with changes, there can be a will for more
radical changes in the long run. By experimenting small-scale, interest in change is evoked,
which in the long term can lead to radical changes and innovation with a higher level of
innovation. At the same time, there is a risk that the concept of innovation becomes diluted if
the term is used for all forms of changes, small scale and incremental, as well as radical.
Respondent from M1: We work with some test projects on a small scale, then it works.
Respondent from M2: We test on a small scale. It can hardly be called innovative. But, who
knows, in the long term, there may be more radical and few bigger experimental attempts.
4.2.5 Create trust. When one is in the capacity development situation, it is important to
share ideas and experiences from each other. In this situation, honesty about one’s own
challenges, shortcomings and difficulties is important. Sincerity for difficulties and
shortcomings is an important ingredient for a good exchange. To succeed in this, trust
among de participants is required. It involves two types of trust. Trust in the process and
trust in each other.
IJQSS In addition, several interviewees emphasised that there is also need for a third type of
trust. This comes from the fact that it is risky to work with new ideas, and therefore, the
management level must create a trustful environment and signal that it is OK to take risks.
Respondent from M1: We did not make the trust journey. Everyone withdrew back home.
We did not feel any trust in each other and the process totally crashed.
4.2.6 Focus on implementation of innovations. Respondents realised that the concrete
implementation of innovations in their own organisation represents the largest obstacle to
radical change. In other words, it is not the idea generation process that is the problem; it is
the implementation of innovation that is the tricky part.
Respondent from M2: We developed a very good and innovative process, but when we were
to launch it, our colleagues were against it. The hard thing was to change our own work, not to
create the new idea.
4.2.7 Encourage curiosity. Some of the interviewees said that the role of a capacity
developer is to encourage curiosity. This is also in line with an expressed need to encourage
monitoring and business intelligence and curiosity about how other organisations solve
similar problems. It is a success factor if the capacity development initiative succeeds in
creating and developing curiosity in the innovation process and for potential innovative
solutions.
Respondent from M1: It is important to create incentives for business intelligence and
interest in learning from others.
Respondent from R2: It is important that leadership nurtures and rewards curiosity.
4.2.8 The capacity development has to relate to – and preferably be developed in –
participants’ own reality. Some interviewees said that a success factor for effective capacity
development is discussions and new knowledge related to and developed from the
participants’ own context. Some of the interviewees experienced that the capacity
development initiative in which they contribute, to some extent, was not able to adapt the
content to the participants’ everyday work reality. Several participants described that their
experience was that the capacity development had too much classical university education
methodology. At the same time, some of the interviewees believed that the greatest strength
of the capacity development was when they were in, as they described it: an “active learning
loop”. By this, they mean that they learned a method, used it in their own organisation,
reported results and received feedback from the capacity development management and
that this process was repeated. By doing so, the participant tested, reflected and built his/her
own understanding of the method. The interviewees argued that guidance sessions, which
were related to the participants’ own concrete projects, were very valuable. Several
interviewees emphasised that this was the greatest asset in capacity building activities.
Respondent from R1: We said we want guidance. We got it and it was great! Why did they
not run it like that from the beginning so that we could talk about our own projects?
Respondent from M2: Most executives have the rhetoric for innovation, but one does not
realise – before you really test and implement – the consequences of an innovative way of
working.
4.2.9 Several participants from the same department. It was perceived as an advantage if
more participants than one, from the same department, can participate in the capacity
development activities at the same time. It was expressed that, by having two or more from
the same department participate, it is possible for them to strengthen each other. The
respondents said that it is easier to exchange ideas with each other and at the same time
easier to translate acquired knowledge into everyday practice. This thereby increases the
likelihood that the capacity development effort yields results in one’s own organisation.
 Respondent from R1: There are two of us from our group. It’s very good that there are two Capacity
of us. Then we can discuss issues with each other. development
Respondent from M2: It’s good if you have at least two from each department participating
in the capacity development programme.
for innovation
4.2.10 Bring together participants with different experiences. Several interviewees
mentioned that having participants from different organisations and administrations is
positive. This creates the opportunity to learn from each other and establish a valuable
exchange. Several of the interviewees also expressed that it is desirable to establish
workgroups across departmental or professional boundaries. This is because many
development needs today require cross-border organisational solutions.
Respondent from R1: Great that not everyone is from the same place, but mixed groups.
Great!
Respondent from M2: Good to have exchanges across municipal boundaries. Participants
can share ideas based on different experiences.
4.2.11 Clear introduction about the competence development process and anticipated
time required. The majority of the interviewees initially pointed out that it is important to
understand the whole of the capacity development initiative and why it starts as it does.
Several interviewees said that the information at the start of the capacity development
initiative was unclear. The interviewees argued that it would have been good with a clearer
initial presentation of the entire process. Someone expressed that the capacity development
setup was messy. Some participants had expected a “creative workshop” while the manager
of the capacity development programme presented the initiative from other perspectives,
such as the need for user and citizen involvement. This created frustration. Participants
wanted to generate ideas right from the start while the manager of the capacity development
emphasised the importance of not starting idea creation without interest mapping. In
addition, initially, the participants did not really understand how much time they needed to
attend the capacity development programme. The capacity development initiative was
perceived as more extensive than the participant was prepared for.
Respondent from R2: People think that a development project can be driven by some
workshops. That you don’t have to work between meetings. You have to realise that you have
to deliver between the workshops. However, it’s not a matter of motivation; it’s a matter of a
lack of communication from project management.
Respondent from M2: I was extremely frustrated at the beginning of the first part, I
thought – what is this? I almost threw in the towel.

5. Discussion
The first sub-question was what the perceived results of different methods of capacity
development are. The study behind this article shows that the respondents who worked
with a design methodology and became bearers of the methodology through practical
participation, i.e. developed their capacity through action learning, easier turned knowledge
into innovative change processes. On the whole, design-driven methodology seems to be a
well-functioning method of capacity development leading to good results when municipal
and regional organisations carry out capacity development of employees with the aim to
create greater leeway for innovation in their organisation. This result is in line with Bason
(2010) and Bessant and Maher (2009). This is also in line with Naqshbandi et al. (2019),
which identifies that employee involvement increases an organisation’s innovation
performance. This involvement effect can also be assumed to be valid for capacity
development, leading to raised innovation performance.
IJQSS The study also shows that it seems difficult to work from a digital communication
platform if the platform is not combined with physical meetings. This is aligned with
the increasing research on e-learning that identifies various limitations of e-learning as
a training method and reveals the need to develop the method (DuFour et al., 2016).
Such development can include the use of blended learning, with a plethora of
documented models, cases and examples involving the mixing of face-to-face with
online learning. These findings are in line with Kim et al. (2008) and Bonk and Graham
(2006). Several researchers describe blended learning as a method that is likely to
emerge as the predominant model of the future (Watson, 2008; Graham, 2013; Siemens,
2014).
The second sub-question in the study was what general enabling factors for education
about innovation are perceived by the participants.
The study shows that it is very important that the capacity development effort, more
than ideation processes, put emphasis on the implementation of innovations in their own
organisation. This is because there is a risk that too much emphasis is placed on the ideation
processes.
The results of the study also show that it may be difficult for university teachers to work
in ongoing municipal activities with employees who either have no experience of university
education or have such experience, but it was from many years ago.
In addition, the data in the study behind this article indicates that an increased ability for
learning is created when participants with different experiences are brought together.
The study behind this article shows that on the whole, a large number of important
perspectives exist, which can be said to be within a “committed and hands-on leadership”.
One of the most important perspectives seems to be to create a learning environment where
the participants trust in the process, trust in each other and their managers. This is in line
with previous research showing that the leadership to a large extent affects the ability to
create leeway for innovation in organisations (Palm and Algehed, 2017; Birken et al., 2015;
Denti, 2013; Albury, 2011; Choi and Chang, 2009).
In addition to identified factors that are in line with previous research results, the study
behind this article also identifies some possible key factors to my knowledge not previously
described as essential for capacity development aiming at greater leeway for innovation.
This is partly about specifying factors within the management factors. Among a broad
spectrum of management factors, there seems to be four factors that are more important
than the others:
(1) The ability to allocate time for capacity development appears to be the most
commonly mentioned factor. This factor is referred to both as a “killing factor”
when this time is lacking and as a success factor when time is “created” by the
leadership.
(2) Managers need to consciously communicate why it is important to work
innovatively. This “why” has to precede working on the question of “how” to
create leeway for innovation.
(3) Managers’ own participation at different levels in capacity development initiatives
is an important factor. Even if managers are not the best suited to drive innovative
development, they need to create support for the employees so that they have time
and interest in participating in capacity development initiatives.
(4) Also, the managers ability to encourage curiosity among staff to work
innovatively is important.
The study also shows that several communication-related factors are paramount for Capacity
successful capacity development. It is very important to initially be clear about and development
communicate the coming process and how much time it is expected that the participants for innovation
must invest in the capacity development initiative.
It appears to be important to disseminate knowledge in the organisation beyond those
directly involved in the design process. It seems to be common that knowledge about the
design process stays among those directly involved in the capacity development process
and is not distributed among other colleagues in the organisation. One way to deal with this
is to make sure to have several participants from the same department at the competence
development occasion and to actively create curiosity in the organisation regarding capacity
development and innovation as a phenomenon.
Another communication factor mentioned in a large number of interviews in all four
initiatives is the need to clarify what the concept of innovation stands for. Several of the
interviewees argue that it is difficult to work with innovation because it has no thematic
residence. The interviewees testify that it means “different or better of something” but
without a clear thematic area.
The study also indicates that a success factor seems to be that participants in the
capacity development can start with incremental changes. This seems to work as a way to
develop the ability to more radical and innovative development later on.
Finally, it is important that the participants in the capacity development work perceive
that the competence development is based on and relate to their own context in which they
normally work.

6. Conclusion
Through grounded theory, the study behind this article specifies – among previously
identified factors – which factors in a public administration context affect achievement of
good results when organisations carry out capacity development of employees with the aim
of creating greater leeway for innovation. The study also identifies a number experienced

Greater leeway for innovaon

Perceived Capacity development through design methodology and acon learning

preferred as it seems to be a useful methodology to turn knowledge and
method experiences into innovave change processes

Figure 2.
A Rich Picture over
Encourage parcipants to experiment and start with incremental changes enabling factors
Bring together
when municipal and
Develop and carry out capacity Focus on implementaon
development in parcipants’ own
parcipants with
of innovaons
regional
Perceived different experiences organisations carry
context
general
enabling Communicaon out capacity
factors for
Create trust
Bring several parcipants development of
capacity Management commitment from the same department
development and support
employees with the
for innovaon Develop the understanding of what aim of creating
the concept of innovaon stands for
greater leeway for
Get insight into and Inform at an early stage about the
Encourage curiosity communicate the need competence development process and innovation in their
for innovaon ancipated me required organisation
IJQSS key factors that to my knowledge not previously has been described as essential for capacity
development aiming at greater leeway for innovation in a public administration context.
The study shows that capacity development through design methodology and action
learning are perceived as the most successful methodologic approach. The study also shows
eleven perceived important factors affecting achievement of good results when municipal
and regional organisations carry out capacity development of employees with the aim of
creating greater leeway for innovation in their organisation. The methodologic approach
and the key factors are described in a Rich Picture, based on Checkland’s system analysis in
Figure 2.

7. Implications for practice

Several municipalities and regional organisations in Sweden are working on capacity
development in innovation. At the same time, several other municipalities and regional
organisations are preparing for capacity development in innovation. For all these parties, it
is important to take advantage of knowledge generated from other practitioners and
researchers who have gone before and have already carried out capacity development in
innovation.
The paper took its starting point in the following research question:

RQ2. What are the experienced key factors affecting achievement of good results when
municipal and regional organisations carry out capacity development of
employees with the aim of creating greater leeway for innovation in their
organisation?
The study behind this article shows a number of important aspects to consider when
municipalities and regional organisations plan their capacity development initiatives in
innovation. A capacity development based on design thinking, blended learning, where
management allocates time, participates, opens up the discussion about what innovation
really is, focusses on participative methods and on the whole works profoundly with
communication perspectives can contribute to creation of greater leeway for innovation in
municipalities and regional organisations. This increases the ability of public organisations
to develop and adapt their operations and deliver high quality and value-adding services to
the citizens.

8. Methodological reflection
The analysis (for both sub-questions) assumes that respondents’ perceptions indicate the
actual key factors. However, there is no guarantee that the respondents’ perceptions of key
factors reflect the actual key factors. However, there is also no reason to assume that they
are not. In this report, the statements from respondents are taken to be the significant factors
without further problematisation.

References
Albury, D. (2011), “Creating the conditions for radical public service innovation”, Australian Journal of
Public Administration, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 227-235.
Almers, E. (2009), “Handlingskompetens för hållbar utveckling: Tre berättelser om vägen dit,
högskolan för lärande och kommunikation”, Doctoral Thesis, School of Education and
Communication, Jönköping University, Jönköping.
Bason, C. (2010), Leading Public Sector Innovation, Policypress, Bristol.
Bessant, J. and Maher, L. (2009), “Developing radical service innovations in healthcare – the role of Capacity
design methods”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 555-568.
development
Billett, S. and Hodge, S. (2016), “Conceptualizing learning across working life, provisions of support and
purposes”, Professional and Practice-Based Learning Book Series, Vol. 16.
for innovation
Birken, S.A., Lee, S.-H.D., Weiner, B.J., Chin, M.H. and Chiu, M. (2015), “From strategy to action: how top
managers’ support increases middle managers’ commitment to innovation implementation in
healthcare organizations”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, p. 159.
Bonk, C.J. and Graham, C.R. (2006), The Handbook of Blended Learning Environments: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs, Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Brorström, S. (2015), “Implementing innovative ideas in a city: good solutions on paper but not in
practice?”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 166-180.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (2007), Soft System Methodology in Action with 30-Year Retrospective,
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Choi, J.N. and Chang, J.Y. (2009), “Innovation implementation in the public sector: an integration
of institutional and collective dynamics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1,
pp. 245-253.
Daglio, M., Gerson, D. and Kitchen, H. (2014), “Building organisational capacity for public sector
innovation”, Background Paper prepared for the OECD Conference Innovating the Public Sector:
from Ideas to Impact, 12-13 November 2014, Paris.
Denti, L. (2013), “Leadership and innovation in R&D teams”, Doctoral Thesis, University of
Gothenburg, Göteborg.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R. and Many, T. (2016), Learning by Doing, Solution Tree Press.
Bloomington.
Graham, C.R. (2013), Emerging Practice and Research in Blended Learning Handbook of Distance
Education, Vol. 3, pp. 333-350.
Hislop, D., Bosua, R. and Helms, R. (2018), Knowledge Management in Organizations: A Critical
Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jackson, M.C. (2003), System Thinking, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Juran, J.M. (1964), Managerial Breakthrough: A New Concept of the Manager’s Job, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Kim, K.J., Bank, C.J. and Oh, E. (2008), “The present and future state of blended learning in workplace
learning settings in the United States”, Performance Improvement, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 5-16.
Koch, T. (1996), “Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: philosophy, rigor and
representation”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 174-184.
Kumar, R. (2019), Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Moore, M. and Hartley, J. (2008), “Innovations in governance”, Public Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 3-20.
Naqshbandi, M.M. and Tabche, I. (2018), “The interplay of leadership, absorptive capacity, and
organizational learning culture in open innovation: testing a moderated mediation model”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 133, pp. 156-167.
Naqshbandi, M.M., Tabche, I. and Choudhary, N. (2019), “Managing open innovation: the roles of
empowering leadership and employee involvement climate”, Management Decision, Vol. 57
No. 3, pp. 703-723.
Palm, K. and Algehed, J. (2017), “Exploring enablers of innovative quality development in public
administration”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 203-217.
IJQSS Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C.M. and Ormston, R. (2013), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for
Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Scruton, R. (1995), A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein, 2nd ed.,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Siemens, G. (2014), “Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age”, International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (ITDL).
Silverman, D. (2010), Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Stoffregen, J.D., Pawlowski, J.M., Ras, E., Tobias, E., Scepanovic, S., Fitzpatrick, D., Mehigan, T.,
Steffens, P., Przygoda, C., Schilling, P., Fredrich, H. and Moebs, S. (2016), “Barriers to open e-
learning in public administrations: a comparative case study of the European countries
Luxembourg”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 111, pp. 198-208.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994), “Grounded theory methodology”, Handbook of Qualitative Research,
Vol. 17, pp. 273-285.
Van Noy, M., Heather, J. and Bedley, C. (2016), Reconceptualizing Learning: A Review of the Literature
on Informal Learning, Rutgers Education and Employment and Research Center.
VR (2014), Downloaded Oct. 5, 2017, available at: www.vr.se/download/18.712db90148ac96a0a8a2eb4/
1411735324835/Utbildningsvetenskap_6.pdf
Watkins, K.E., Marsick, V.E. and Wasserman, I. (2019), “Action research, action learning, and
appreciative inquiry: interventions that build individual and group capacity for EBOCD”,
Evidence-Based Initiatives for Organizational Change and Development, IGI Global, pp. 76-92.
Watson, J. (2008), “Blended learning: the convergence of online and face-to-face education. Promising
practices in online learning”, North American Council for Online Learning.
Wihlman, T. (2014), “Innovation in municipal welfare services”, Doctoral Thesis, Mälardalen
University, Västerås.

Further reading
Kyong-Jee, K., Curtis, J.B. and Eunjung, O. (2008), “The present and future state of blended learning in
workplace learning settings in the United States”, Performance Improvement, Vol. 47 No. 8,
pp. 5-16.

Corresponding author
Klas Palm can be contacted at: klas.palm@angstrom.uu.se

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com