Article

International Review of Administrative

Sciences
How can governance 2022, Vol. 88(1) 114–130
! The Author(s) 2020
support collaborative Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
innovation in the public DOI: 10.1177/0020852319893444
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras

sector? A systematic
review of the literature

Andr

e Vaz Lopes
University of Bras
ılia, Brazil

Josivania Silva Farias

University of Bras
ılia, Brazil

Abstract
Collaborative innovation has been increasingly adopted by the public sector to address
complex issues and improve its efficiency. Despite the developments in the literature on
this subject, recent studies still indicate the need to investigate how public governance
could be organized to support collaborative processes of innovation. Through a sys-
tematic review of 36 empirical studies, this article aims to contribute to bridging this
gap by identifying the characteristics that should form governance in order to support
the collaborative innovation process in the public sector. The results show that the
establishment of relationships of trust, supported by technology tools and promoted by
leaders committed to well-established goals, is a characteristic of governance that has a
positive influence on collaborative innovation processes. However, there is still a need
to develop more studies that indicate the characteristics of governance that may con-
tribute to the implementation of innovation and not just to its creation processes.

Points for practitioners

Collaboration has been shown to be a more positive strategy for innovation in the
public sector in comparison with strategies that seek isolation or competition.

Corresponding author:
Andr
e Vaz Lopes, Postgraduate Program in Administration (PPGA) of the Faculty of Economics,
Administration, Accounting and Public Policy Management (FACE) of the University of Bras
ılia (UNB), Bras
ılia
70910-900, Brazil.
Email: andrevazlopes@gmail.com
Lopes and Farias 115

However, it is necessary to establish governance mechanisms that contribute to the

involvement of stakeholders and to the achievement of the intended results so that this
strategy becomes successful. By reviewing the results of prior empirical experiences,
this article identifies that in order for collaborative innovation processes in the public
sector to be successful, governance must predict: the participation of top management
and managers with decision-making power; the setting of clear goals and needs; the
generation of useful innovation that benefits stakeholders; and the establishment of
tools that facilitate communication, interaction, and the sharing of information and
knowledge. This information provides managers and public policymakers with key
indicators, learned from prior mistakes and accomplishments, for the implementation
of this innovation strategy in their organizations.

Keywords
collaborative innovation, governance, open innovation, public sector

Introduction
Innovation and collaboration have been adopted by public organizations as strat-
egies to achieve better results in the management of common crises (Elston et al.,
2018; Nohrstedt et al., 2018), the optimization of available resources (Diamond
and Vangen, 2017; Lewis et al., 2018), and as a response to technological and social
development (Seo et al., 2018). The combination of both strategies, promoting
collaborative innovation, brings advantages over other innovation strategies as
collaboration can benefit all steps of the innovation process and enables the shar-
ing of costs, risks, and benefits (Sørensen and Torfing, 2011; Torfing, 2019).
Many studies indicate that the models of leadership, management, and gover-
nance adopted in public administration have obstacles to be overcome for the
adoption of innovative practices (e.g. Andersen and Jakobsen, 2018; Boon and
Verhoest, 2018; O’Neil et al., 2016), and some researches on collaborative inno-
vation in the public sector have focused on the internal dynamics of organizations
(Bernier et al., 2015), highlighting the limitations imposed by traditional bureau-
cracy and ways to overcome them (Wegrich, 2019). However, the study of this
form of innovation encompasses both the concepts inherent to the innovation
process itself and the interrelationships among public organizations and between
the public sector and society (Bekkers and Tummers, 2018).
Despite the advances in the literature, these aspects were not fully explored, and
recent studies indicate the need to investigate how different management strategies
influence the innovation and collaboration process and how public governance
could be organized in order to support collaborative processes of innovation
(e.g. Agger and Sørensen, 2018; Torfing, 2019). Therefore, through a systematic
review of the literature, this article aims to contribute to bridging this gap by
116 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

answering the following question: what characteristics must form public gover-
nance in order to support collaborative innovation process in the public sector?

Collaborative innovation in the public sector

The search for innovation in the public sector was stimulated by the administrative
reforms of the 1990s, in the wake of New Public Management (NPM), particularly
aiming at performance improvement and cost reduction (Damanpour et al., 2009),
as well as gaining efficiency and quality in the services provided (Arundel et al.,
2015). This search is still present in current governments as society and private
companies continue to have a growing demand for high-quality, comprehensive
and efficient public services, which must be provided by states with increasingly
scarce resources (Sørensen and Torfing, 2011). The combination of financial con-
straint and growing demand creates the need to adopt new solutions to meet new
demands without increasing public spending (Sørensen and Torfing, 2011).
In contrast to managerialism and the focus on the improvement of internal
processes recommended by NPM, current governments, aligned with the principles
of New Public Service (NPS) and New Public Governance (NPG), have been
searching for new solutions through collaboration with citizens in the identification
of problems and development, and in the implementation of public policies
(Denhardt and Denhardt, 2015; Osborne, 2006). The involvement of citizens in
the development of new public policies is related to the nature of the innovation in
the service sector, in which “clients” are co-producers and their experiences, knowl-
edge, and involvement in the production of services influence their satisfaction
(Gallouj and Savona, 2009). Therefore, interaction and cooperation among multiple
actors is an intrinsic characteristic of innovation in the service sector, representing a
process that is not only stimulating, but also necessary for the innovative process
(Agger and Sørensen, 2018; Hartley et al., 2013; Lewis et al., 2018).
Innovation through collaboration represents the essence of the open innovation
concept established by Chesbrough (2003), who suggests that companies must seek
interaction with other companies or external agents to create ideas and improve
their products and services, as well as involve their clients in a co-creation process
to improve their experiences and achieve their objectives. Thus, studies on
co-creation and open innovation offer the main insights into the collaborative
innovation strategy (Hartley et al., 2013).
In the public sector, collaborative innovation is brought closer to discussions
about networked government (Bommert, 2010), in which the provision of public
services may be improved through the interaction of multiple actors, and politi-
cians and public employees play a mediating and managing role in these relation-
ships (Bovaird, 2005; Osborne, 2006). Thus, the interaction of the public sector
with non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders is a key factor for
state innovation capacity (Godenhjelm and Johanson, 2018).
Collaborative innovation processes are inserted into “institutional arenas of
interaction that can be analyzed as governance networks” (Sørensen and
Lopes and Farias 117

Torfing, 2011: 860). These arenas provide rules, standards, and routines that create
interaction patterns and structure the actions of the actors involved, and they can
be transformed by the governance models adopted (Ansell and Gash, 2012;
Sørensen and Torfing, 2011, 2017).
The term “governance” is used in several ways, thus making its definition a little
imprecise (Rhodes, 1996), and reflects an attempt to improve coordination among
relatively dependent actors in order to solve common problems among them
(Klijn, 2008). Governments seek to manage their challenges through governance
structures, which are necessary for decision-making (Janssen and Van der Voort,
2016). Governance encompasses a set of structural arrangements that, on the one
hand, are influenced by social changes resulting from innovation processes and, on
the other hand, influence innovation processes in the public sector (Scupola and
Zanfei, 2016).
In more concrete terms, Lynn et al. (2000) indicate that governance involves
environmental factors, client characteristics, processes, technologies, and
managerial actions, and refers to “the means for achieving direction, control,
and coordination of wholly or partially autonomous individuals or organizations
on behalf of interests to which they jointly contribute” (Lynn et al., 2000: 235).
Thus, the authority patterns (vertical or horizontal), focus (on procedure or
outcomes), and priority (control and stability or creativity and change) of the
organizations, as well as their operational perspectives (intra-organizational
or inter-organizational), which jointly shape governance, directly influence collab-
orative innovation processes in the public sector (Agger and Sørensen, 2018).
Based on many fields of knowledge, Lynn et al. (2000) presented a methodo-
logical model for the study of governance, which includes a set of common vari-
ables that can be used in empirical research, regardless of the adopted logics,
conception, or theory regarding governance. These variables include: (1) outputs
and outcomes; (2) environmental factors; (3) client characteristics; (4) treatments
(primary work, core processes, and technology); (5) structures; and (6) managerial
actions and roles (Lynn et al., 2000).
To outline the aspects that will be analyzed in this article, we have followed the
governance concept and the variables indicated by Lynn et al. (2000) in order to
identify the characteristics that have a positive impact on the collaborative inno-
vation process in the public sector and that could form a governance structure to
support this process. From this methodological model, we aim to identify specific
characteristics, even if they are individualized, since the governance model used in
a considerable number of studies that address collaborative innovation in the
public sector is not fully explored, making it difficult to bring it closer to a specific
model or theory.

Research method
This work consists in a systematic review of the literature, based on the Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach,
118 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

in order to clarify the criteria for the identification, selection, and evaluation of
relevant research on the studied subject in search of a solution for the identified
problem (Moher et al., 2009).

Eligibility of articles
Scientific articles published in English at any date that met the following three
criteria were included in the review:

1. Analysis field: the articles must provide empirical results on any of the variables
used for the study of governance indicated by Lynn et al. (2000) and that are
related to collaborative innovation practices in the public sector: outputs and
outcomes; environmental factors; client characteristics; core processes and tech-
nology; structures; and managerial actions and roles. For this study,
“collaborative innovation” refers to the formulation and implementation of
new policies regarding and ways of providing services that entail a qualitative
change in their outcomes or development and performance processes, and that
occur with the collaboration, cooperation, or participation of actors who are
external to the organization (Bommert, 2010).
2. Methodology: only empirical studies were included, regardless of approach or
methodology, with the aim of summarizing evidence rather than theoretical
contributions. In addition, other reviews were excluded in order to avoid
duplication.
3. Types of publication: articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals in
any field of knowledge that were identified in Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR)
or Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were included as journals indexed in SJR or
JCR already go through a prior quality assessment process.

Information sources and search strategy

The searches were made in two scientific databases with a recognized coverage,
Web of Science and Scopus, due to their wide coverage of the subject of this study.
The terms “collaborative innovat*,” “co-creat*,” and “open innovat*” were
searched in titles, abstracts, and keywords near the terms “public” and
“government.” The terms “co-creat*” and “open innovat*” were also included
because they predict the collaborative innovation strategy in their conception (Lee
et al., 2012). Alternative search sources, for example, indication by specialists, were
not included in order to avoid any bias in the set of studies analyzed.
The searches was carried out in October 2018 and initially resulted in
400 articles. After the exclusion of duplicated articles and after applying the inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria, 36 articles were identified for review, as detailed in
Figure 1.
Lopes and Farias 119

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for the literature review process.

Results and discussion

General characteristics of the studies
The studies that constitute this review were published in 30 different journals,
involving 102 researchers, and including authors and co-authors, with most pub-
lications (63.8%) occurring in 2017 and 2018. A total of 30 articles resulted from
research in only one country and six articles made a comparison between coun-
tries, among which one article carried out research involving data from 68 unspe-
cified countries.
Except for the latter, the studies were carried out in 23 different countries,
among which Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands were the most recurrent
countries, with four studies each. The largest concentration of countries is in
Europe, representing 69.5% of the total. The other countries are located in Asia
(three countries), North America (two countries), Oceania (one country), and
Africa (one country). The works analyzed in this review are mentioned in
Table 1 and organized according to their main study locus.
120 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

Table 1. Articles included in the systematic review.

Study locus Articles

Strategies or methodologies
employed in collaborative
innovation
Tools used to promote
collaborative innovation
Specific sectors that
implemented
collaborative
innovation
Competitions and Mergel (2015, 2018) and Mergel and
awards Desouza (2013)
Open data Khayyat and Bannister (2017) and
Schmidthuber and Hilgers (2018)
Innovation laboratory Carstensen and Bason (2012) and
Gasc
o (2017)
Design thinking Baek and Kim (2018)
Social media D
ıaz-D
ıaz and P
erez-González
(2016), Konsti-Laakso (2017),
Loukis et al. (2017), Vakeel and
Panigrahi (2018), and Zhang et al.
(2017)
Technology Emaldi et al. (2017), Gagliardi et al.
(2017), Kube et al. (2015) and
Tate et al. (2018)
Water and environment Grotenbreg and Van Buuren (2018)
and Uden and Naaranoja (2011)
Public procurement Torvinen and Ulkuniemi (2016)
Education Palumbo et al. (2018) and Voorberg
et al. (2017a, 2017b)
Housing Hennala et al. (2011)
Legislative power Chatwin and Arku (2018)
General public policies Agger and Sørensen (2018) and
Feller et al. (2011)
Health and well-being Fuglsang (2008), Lindsay et al.
(2018), Mikusova Merickova et al.
(2015), O’Neil et al. (2016),
Sørensen and Torfing (2017), and
Touati and Maillet (2018)
Legal services Luu et al. (2018) and Tuan (2018)
Public TV Vanhaeght and Donders (2016)

Characteristics of governance that foster collaborative innovation

The characteristics that must be present in governance in order for it to contribute
to the collaborative innovation process in the public sector were initially identified
according to the variables suggested by Lynn et al. (2000): (1) outputs and out-
comes; (2) environmental factors; (3) client characteristics; (4) treatments (primary
work, core processes, and technology); (5) structures; and (6) managerial actions
and roles.
Following this identification, the characteristics were organized into four groups
in order to represent the focus of this study in a more didactic way and to facilitate
future discussions about potential specific governance arrangements to support
Lopes and Farias 121

collaborative innovation in the public sector. This organization is represented in

Figure 2.
The first group—internal characteristics of organizations—includes structure
and treatment variables. In the second group—organizational relationships—
there are variables related to environmental factors. The third group—tools and
strategies for citizen participation—comprises variables related to outputs/
outcomes and client characteristics. The fourth group—managerial roles and lead-
ership practices—includes variables related to managerial actions and roles.

Internal characteristics of organizations. The characteristics related to this group were

referenced in 10 articles, pointing to the top management or political support as

Figure 2. The characteristics of governance that support the collaborative innovation process in
the public sector.
122 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

the most recurrent features. As pointed out by Grotenbreg and Van Buuren (2018),
authorities need to use all of their capacities to support the collaborative innova-
tion process: regulatory capacity, adjusting their policies and rules; delivery capac-
ity, increasing the viability of implementing solutions; analytical capacity,
providing the necessary information; and ability to coordinate, reach the alignment
of expectations and the achievement of objectives.
The authoritarian tradition of the government and the few legal restraints were
also pointed to as relevant characteristics in two case-related studies in Estonia.
These characteristics are related to the autonomy and decision-making capacity of
the actors responsible for the collaborative innovation process, making the intro-
duction of it faster and eliminating the need for articulation or agreements with
multiple instances of power for its realization (Voorberg et al., 2017a, 2017b).
Some studies have also highlighted the importance of aligning the objectives of
the collaborative innovation process with the strategic objectives of the govern-
ment or the organization, that is, the collaborative innovation process must be part
of a bigger strategy for achieving a goal (Agger and Sørensen, 2018; D
ıaz-D
ıaz and
P
erez-González, 2016; Mergel, 2018; Mergel and Desouza, 2013).

Organizational relations. A total of 10 articles (27.7%) identified characteristics relat-

ed to intra- and inter-organizational interactions. The need for the involvement of
multiple actors with diverse roles and interdisciplinary knowledge was highlighted
by most of these studies. Lindsay et al. (2018) point out that employees who
described more positive experiences of collaborative innovation acted closer to
users, prioritizing learning and interdisciplinary collaboration. For these authors,
employees must act beyond the specific functions of their jobs and get involved in a
more flexible and responsive way in problem solving (Lindsay et al., 2018).
Sørensen and Torfing (2017) suggest the need for a meta-governance strategy to
support innovation in order to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and legitimacy
of governments. The authors point out that collaborative innovation requires a
diversified group of actors, with different knowledge and experience, which allows
for the identification of creative solutions to the identified problems (Sørensen and
Torfing, 2017). The participation of relevant decision-making actors so that the
innovations can be carried forward is also seen as a success factor for the process
(Grotenbreg and Van Buuren, 2018; Tate et al., 2018; Touati and Maillet, 2018).
Agger and Sørensen (2018) draw attention to the importance of actors playing
multiple roles: playing a pilot role that aligns collaborative innovation activities
with governance objectives; motivating through encouraging other actors to col-
laborate with the innovation process; being a culture creator, who seeks to develop
a culture of collaborative innovation; and being a communicator, who should have
the role of creating a mutual understanding between the other actors, who have
diverse knowledge, experiences, and perspectives on the process of collaborative
innovation. The studies also identified the need to establish formal agreements in
which reciprocal responsibilities between different actors should be defined, and
that undergo constant adjustments, in order to stabilize relationships and require
Lopes and Farias 123

each participant to support shared commitments (O’Neil et al., 2016; Touati and
Maillet, 2018).

Tools and strategies for citizen participation. The characteristics that favor citizen par-
ticipation were addressed by most of the articles analyzed (25 studies or 69.44%).
The importance of a tool or intermediation strategy in the process, such as the use
of a technological platform, social media, or innovation laboratories, was the main
characteristic pointed out. The use of social media facilitates the identification of
the knowledge external to the organizations and communication related to public
policies (Loukis et al., 2017), as well as allowing the awareness of citizens’ prob-
lems and concerns (Konsti-Laakso, 2017).
The use of technology, both to aggregate information and manage ideas
(Emaldi et al., 2017), as well as to facilitate non-face-to-face communication, is
also pointed to as an important factor for citizen participation (Baek and Kim,
2018), and the lack of a data management system can be a hindrance to this
process (Chatwin and Arku, 2018). Mergel (2018) points to the use of technology
as a component of the very essence of open innovation, using online platforms to
broaden the inclusion of ideas. On the other hand, the technological platform
selected needs to be user-friendly (Chatwin and Arku, 2018; D
ıaz-D
ıaz and
P
erez-González, 2016; Luu et al., 2018; Mergel, 2018).
Some characteristics that favor citizen participation, though sometimes cited
separately, seem to be part of the same set of qualities or attitudes of governments:
dialogue, transparency, and trust in both the innovation process and the govern-
ment itself were pointed to as fundamental for this mobilization (Baek and Kim,
2018; Chatwin and Arku, 2018; Hennala et al., 2011; Khayyat and Bannister, 2017;
Konsti-Laakso, 2017; Kube et al., 2015; O’Neil et al., 2016; Palumbo et al., 2018;
Torvinen and Ulkuniemi, 2016; Uden and Naaranoja, 2011). The use of monetary
incentives is not always relevant, which leads to the need to identify more clearly
which incentives actually motivate participation, which may be the very possibility
of collaborating with the improvement of public services, the recognition of having
one’s own idea used, solving a problem that strikes you, or simply learning
(Hennala et al., 2011; Mergel, 2018; Mergel and Desouza, 2013; Torvinen and
Ulkuniemi, 2016; Vanhaeght and Donders, 2016).
Thus, the usefulness of the intended innovation or the perceived benefit in
relation to the innovation process are also important characteristics for citizen
engagement (Gagliardi et al., 2017; Torvinen and Ulkuniemi, 2016), which are
also related to the importance of clearly defining the problems to be faced and
the objectives to be achieved (Baek and Kim, 2018; Fuglsang, 2008; Mergel and
Desouza, 2013). Finally, from the point of view of the characteristics of public
service users themselves, their participation is influenced by their knowledge and
ability to collaborate with the process (Palumbo et al., 2018; Vanhaeght and
Donders, 2016), as well as their sense of social responsibility and awareness of
their rights as citizens (Chatwin and Arku, 2018; Kube et al., 2015).
124 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

Managerial roles and leadership practices. Characteristics related to leadership or

direct managers of the collaborative innovation process were approached in six
(16.6%) articles. Luu, Rowley, and Dinh (2018) point out that ambidextrous lead-
ership, characterized by the ability to simultaneously exploit new skills and make
the most of existing skills, fosters co-creation. Thus, managers must be able to
motivate their employees to develop new skills and make the most of their abilities
to more effectively meet citizens’ needs (Luu et al., 2018), as well as create value for
themselves and the users of public services (Tuan, 2018).
Studies also point to the importance of some specific managerial skills, such as
coordination capacity (Grotenbreg and Van Buuren, 2018), the ability to take risks
(Mergel, 2018), and a commitment to process organization (Hennala et al., 2011).
For Tuan (2018), the leaders must have a patrimonial characteristic and a certain
amount of authoritarianism in order to keep employees aligned with the central
objectives of the organizations.
The role of leadership becomes even more important when we consider that the
very factors that drive collaboration and innovation are themselves contradictory.
While collaboration tends to be favored by a certain similarity of opinions, values,
and knowledge among the actors involved, innovation tends to be more productive
when there are different visions, ideas, and experiences that complement and coun-
ter each other in the search for creative solutions (Torfing, 2019). Thus, the lead-
ership role of mediating potential conflicts through motivating and coordinating
the actors involved is fundamental for the success of the collaborative innovation
process.

How can governance support the collaborative innovation process?

Innovation in the public sector needs to overcome several barriers, especially those
related to the bureaucratic organization model, such as change aversion, rigid
controls, and vertical hierarchy (Agger and Sørensen, 2018). Innovation has as
its important components interaction between multiple actors and risk exposure:
not all solutions are within organizations and not all innovations will be successful.
It is important to understand innovation as a collaborative process, which involves
different expectations, knowledge, experiences, and roles. To support this process,
governance structures need to be appropriate to a reality where the public sector is
neither the only nor the most important actor in the innovation process, and
the studies evaluated in this review point out ways to do this, as summarized in
Figure 2.
Governance structures, in their various models, aim to achieve the direction,
coordination, and control of individuals and organizations in pursuit of an
expected result (Lynn et al., 2000). Governments seek to organize their governance
systems by defining management processes, technologies, and roles to support
public policy decision-making and implementation (Janssen and Van der Voort,
2016). In the case of collaborative innovation, the characteristics that should com-
pose a governance model are close to the collaborative governance model proposed
Lopes and Farias 125

by Ansell and Gash (2008): a government arrangement in which public organiza-

tions interact with non-state actors to implement or manage public policies
through joint decisions.
This arrangement is essentially based on trust and interdependence, involving
the collective work of public and private actors to establish rules and procedures
for the provision of public services (Ansell and Gash, 2008). In order to foster
collaborative innovation, the revised studies point out that the governance struc-
ture should therefore predict the building of intra- and inter-organizational rela-
tionships based on partnership and the mutual sharing of responsibilities,
including multiple relevant actors, with diverse profiles and decision-making
power. The potential for stakeholder gains needs to be clear, and the actors
involved need to understand the usefulness of the outcome of the innovation
process.
On the public organization side, this sense of utility may be related to the need
for the strategic alignment of the collaborative innovation process itself with the
objectives of organizations or governments. This alignment can be both a cause
and a consequence of political support or top management by governments, which
is also pointed out by the reviewed studies as a major factor in the success of this
innovation process. Contrary to the very conception of collaboration, the author-
itarian decision of top management to implement collaborative innovation pro-
cesses was pointed to as a possible success factor since bureaucrats would tend to
follow the superior decision that was made, without imposing any resistance. Thus,
a governance structure that supports the process of collaborative innovation needs
to have mechanisms that favor integration with citizens and non-governmental
organizations, in line with the assumptions made by NPG, but must also include
a clear definition of roles, responsibilities and the results to be achieved, the
involvement of appropriate decision-makers, and the provision of necessary oper-
ational tools, bringing the governance structure closer to the concepts of NPM and
the traditional public bureaucracy itself.

Limitations and research agenda

This article has some limitations, especially due to its methodological choices. The
study survey considered the terms related to collaborative innovation, open inno-
vation, and co-creation in order to identify research that directly addressed this
innovation strategy. However, research that addresses public policy design, while
not focusing directly on the topic of innovation, can also provide important
insights into building a governance model for collaborative innovation.
Moreover, as reported at the beginning of this article, the term “governance”
has several interpretations. The authors chose to identify studies based on
the elements indicated by Lynn et al. (2000), which restricts the research to
a governance evaluation model. Nevertheless, this article contributes to the
advancement of knowledge about the organization and implementation of
126 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

collaborative innovation processes in the public sector, as well as suggesting pos-

sibilities for future studies in this field, as indicated later.
The reviewed studies are concentrated in the investigation of the innovation
process, leaving little empirical assessment of the results of innovation. Thus, it
remains an open question for future researches to identify the characteristics of a
governance model that contributes to the implementation of innovations that lead
to transformation or improvement in public services.
Few empirical studies that address leadership in the collaborative innovation
process were also identified. Studies of this kind may indicate possibilities for
improvement in the process of the selection and qualification of public managers,
besides providing important insights into the management of the innovation process.
Finally, the reviewed studies deal with the conditions already installed in
the collaborative innovation process, without addressing the path taken to their
establishment. New studies could specifically address the process of organizational
and cultural change that enables public governance to foster this innovation
strategy.

Conclusions
Collaboration has been cited as an important strategy for innovation in the public
sector, which leads to the need to further study the different management strategies
and governance models that may favor their implementation (e.g. Agger and
Sørensen, 2018; Torfing, 2019). This article aimed to identify the governance char-
acteristics that could support the collaborative innovation process in the public
sector. The results of the study indicate that the governance structure should pre-
dict organizational and managerial principles that involve relevant actors and align
the intended results with the strategic objectives of the government or the organi-
zation, besides the needs of the citizens themselves. This structure should predict:
the participation of top management and decision-making managers; the definition
of clear needs and objectives; the generation of useful innovation that brings
benefits to stakeholders; and the establishment of tools that facilitate communica-
tion, interaction, and the sharing of information and knowledge. The reviewed
studies in this article also confirm that collaboration is an important strategy for
innovation in the public sector, and it is up to managers and public planners to
establish governance principles that could benefit this process.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
Lopes and Farias 127

ORCID iD
Andr
e Vaz Lopes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8929-2374

References
Agger A and Sørensen E (2018) Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies.
Planning Theory 17(1): 53–73.
Andersen SC and Jakobsen ML (2018) Political pressure, conformity pressure, and perfor-
mance information as drivers of public sector innovation adoption. International Public
Management Journal 21(2): 213–242.
Ansell C and Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571.
Ansell C and Gash A (2012) Stewards, mediators, and catalysts: Toward a model of col-
laborative leadership. Innovation Journal 17(1): 1–21.
Arundel A, Casali L, and Hollanders H (2015) How European public sector agencies inno-
vate: The use of bottom-up, policy-dependent and knowledge-scanning innovation meth-
ods. Research Policy 44(7): 1271–1282.
Baek S and Kim S (2018) Participatory public service design by Gov.3.0 design group.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(1): 245.
Bekkers V and Tummers L (2018) Innovation in the public sector: Towards an open
and collaborative approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(2):
209–213.
Bernier L, Hafsi T, and Deschamps C (2015) Environmental determinants of public sector
innovation: A study of innovation awards in Canada. Public Management Review 17(6):
834–856.
Bommert B (2010) Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public
Management Review 11(1): 15–33.
Boon J and Verhoest K (2018) On the dynamics of reform resistance: Why and how bureau-
cratic organizations resist shared service center reforms. International Public
Management Journal 21(4): 533–577.
Bovaird T (2005) Public governance: Balancing stakeholder power in a network society.
International Review of Administrative Sciences 71(2): 217–228.
Carstensen HV and Bason C (2012) Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can inno-
vation labs help? The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 17(1):
2–26.
Chatwin M and Arku G (2018) Co-creating an open government action plan: The case of
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly, Ghana. Growth and Change 49(2): 374–393.
Chesbrough HW (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting
from Technology. Boston: MA: Harvard Business Press.
Damanpour F, Walker RM, and Avellaneda CN (2009) Combinative effects of innovation
types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations.
Journal of Management Studies 46(4): 650–675.
Denhardt JV and Denhardt RB (2015) The new public service revisited. Public
Administration Review 75(5): 664–672.
Diamond J and Vangen S (2017) Coping with austerity: Innovation via collaboration or
retreat to the known? Public Money & Management 37(1): 47–54.
128 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

D
ıaz-D
ıaz R and P
erez-González D (2016) Implementation of social media concepts for

e-government. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 28(3): 104–121.
Elston T, MacCarthaigh M, and Verhoest K (2018) Collaborative cost-cutting: Productive
efficiency as an interdependency between public organizations. Public Management
Review 20(12): 1815–1835.
Emaldi M, Aguilera U, L
opez-de-Ipi~
na D et al. (2017) Towards citizen co-created public
service apps. Sensors 17(6): 1265.
Feller J, Finnegan P, and Nilsson O (2011) Open innovation and public administration:
Transformational typologies and business model impacts. European Journal of
Information Systems 20(3): 358–374.
Fuglsang L (2008) Capturing the benefits of open innovation in public innovation: A case
study. International Journal of Services Technology and Management 9(3/4): 234.
Gagliardi D, Schina L, Sarcinella ML et al. (2017) Information and communication tech-
nologies and public participation: Interactive maps and value added for citizens.
Government Information Quarterly 34(1): 153–166.
Gallouj F and Savona M (2009) Innovation in services: A review of the debate and a
research agenda. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 19(2): 149–172.
Gasc
o M (2017) Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector.
Government Information Quarterly 34(1): 90–98.
Godenhjelm S and Johanson J-EE (2018) The effect of stakeholder inclusion on public sector
project innovation. International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(1): 42–62.
Grotenbreg S and Van Buuren A (2018) Realizing innovative public waterworks: Aligning
administrative capacities in collaborative innovation processes. Journal of Cleaner
Production 171: S45–S55.
Hartley J, Sørensen E, and Torfing J (2013) Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative
to market competition. Public Administration Review 73(6): 821–830.
Hennala L, Parjanen S, and Uotila T (2011) Challenges of multi-actor involvement in the
public sector front-end innovation processes. European Journal of Innovation
Management 14(3): 364–387.
Janssen M and Van der Voort H (2016) Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, account-
able and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly 33(1): 1–5.
Khayyat M and Bannister F (2017) Towards a model for facilitating and enabling
co-creation using open government data. Information Polity 22(4): 211–231.
Klijn EH (2008) Governance and governance networks in Europe: An assessment of ten
years of research on the theme. Public Management Review 10(4): 505–525.
Konsti-Laakso S (2017) Stolen snow shovels and good ideas: The search for and generation
of local knowledge in the social media community. Government Information Quarterly
34(1): 134–139.
Kube M, Hilgers D, Koch G et al. (2015) Explaining voluntary citizen online participation
using the concept of citizenship: An explanatory study on an open government platform.
Journal of Business Economics 85(8): 873–895.
Lee SM, Olson DL and Trimi S (2012) Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collaboration, and
co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision 50(5): 817–831.
Lewis JM, Ricard LM, and Klijn EH (2018) How innovation drivers, networking
and leadership shape public sector innovation capacity. International Review of
Administrative Sciences 84(2): 288–307.
Lopes and Farias 129

Lindsay C, Findlay P, McQuarrie J et al. (2018) Collaborative innovation, new technologies,

and work redesign. Public Administration Review 78(2): 251–260.
Loukis E, Charalabidis Y, and Androutsopoulou A (2017) Promoting open innovation in
the public sector through social media monitoring. Government Information Quarterly
34(1): 99–109.
Luu TT, Rowley C, and Dinh KC (2018) Enhancing the effect of frontline public employees’
individual ambidexterity on customer value co-creation. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 33(4): 506–522.
Lynn LE, Heinrich CJ, and Hill CJ (2000) Studying governance and public management:
Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2):
233–262.
Mergel I (2015) Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to collaborate
with external problem solvers. Social Science Computer Review 33(5): 599–612.
Mergel I (2018) Open innovation in the public sector: Drivers and barriers for the adoption
of Challenge.gov. Public Management Review 20(5): 726–745.
Mergel I and Desouza KC (2013) Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The
case of Challenge.gov. Public Administration Review 73(6): 882–890.
Mikusova Merickova B, Nemec J, and Svidro nová M (2015) Co-creation in local public
services delivery innovation: Slovak experience. Lex localis—Journal of Local Self-
Government 13(3): 521–535.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine 151(4): 264–269.
Nohrstedt D, Bynander F, Parker C et al. (2018) Managing crises collaboratively: Prospects
and problems—A systematic literature review. Perspectives on Public Management and
Governance May: 1–15.
O’Neil J, Gallagher J, Wylie L et al. (2016) Transforming First Nations’ health
governance in British Columbia. International Journal of Health Governance 21(4):
229–244.
Osborne SP (2006) The new public governance? Public Management Review 8(3): 377–387.
Palumbo R, Vezzosi S, Picciolli P et al. (2018) Fostering organizational change through co-
production. Insights from an Italian experience. International Review on Public and
Nonprofit Marketing 15(3): 371–391.
Rhodes RAW (1996) The new governance: Governing without governance. Political Studies
44: 652–667.
Schmidthuber L and Hilgers D (2018) Unleashing innovation beyond organizational bound-
aries: Exploring citizensourcing projects. International Journal of Public Administration
41(4): 268–283.
Scupola A and Zanfei A (2016) Governance and innovation in public sector services: The
case of the digital library. Government Information Quarterly 33(2): 237–249.
Seo I, Kim Y, and Choi J (2018) Assessment of efficiency in public service—Focused
on government 3.0 case in Korea. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
29(9/10): 1161–1184.
Sørensen E and Torfing J (2011) Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector.
Administration & Society 43(8): 842–868.
Sørensen E and Torfing J (2017) Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance
networks. American Review of Public Administration 47(7): 826–839.
130 International Review of Administrative Sciences 88(1)

Tate M, Bongiovanni I, Kowalkiewicz M et al. (2018) Managing the “fuzzy front end” of
open digital service innovation in the public sector: A methodology. International Journal
of Information Management 39(November): 186–198.
Torfing J (2019) Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public
Management Review 21(1): 1–11.
Torvinen H and Ulkuniemi P (2016) End-user engagement within innovative public pro-
curement practices: A case study on public–private partnership procurement. Industrial
Marketing Management 58: 58–68.
Touati N and Maillet L (2018) Co-creation within hybrid networks: What can be learnt
from the difficulties encountered? The example of the fight against blood- and sexually-
transmitted infections. International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(3): 469–485.
Tuan LT (2018) Behind the influence of job crafting on citizen value co-creation with the
public organization: Joint effects of paternalistic leadership and public service motiva-
tion. Public Management Review 20(10): 1533–1561.
Uden L and Naaranoja M (2011) Co-creation of value for a public service. International
Journal of Services, Economics and Management 3(4): 427.
Vakeel KA and Panigrahi PK (2018) Social media usage in e-government. Journal of Global
Information Management 26(1): 1–19.
Vanhaeght AS and Donders K (2016) Moving beyond the borders of top-down broadcast-
ing: An analysis of younger users’ participation in public service media. Television and
New Media 17(4): 291–307.
Voorberg W, Bekkers V, Timeus K et al. (2017a) Changing public service delivery: Learning
in co-creation. Policy and Society 36(2): 178–194.
Voorberg W, Bekkers V, Flemig S et al. (2017b) Does co-creation impact public service
delivery? The importance of state and governance traditions. Public Money and
Management 37(5): 365–372.
Wegrich K (2019) The blind spots of collaborative innovation. Public Management Review
21(1): 12–20: 1–9.
Zhang N, Zhao X, Zhang Z et al. (2017) What factors drive open innovation in China’s
public sector? A case study of official document exchange via microblogging (ODEM) in
Haining. Government Information Quarterly 34(1): 126–133.

Andr
e Vaz Lopes is a PhD student in Administration at the University of Bras
ılia

(UnB), Brazil, and federal public servant in the Brazilian Health Regulatory
Agency (Anvisa). Andr
e has a master’s in Public Health, with a concentration
on development and public policy. Research interests include innovation, public
management, bureaucracy, managerial development, and public appointments.

Josivania Silva Farias is Professor at the University of Bras
ılia (UnB), Brazil, with
a PhD in Administration and a master’s in Development and Environment.
Josivania has experience in administration, acting on the following subjects: mar-
keting, services marketing, services innovation, public innovation, co-production,
and co-creation in public and private services.