Policy and Complex Systems
The recent interest about innovation in public sector reflects 1 an attempt to cast new light on the government / governance issues ( see , for example , Navarra and Cornford 2007 ; Gil-Garcia 2012 ; Maier-Rabler and Huber 2011 ; OASIS 2011 ; Talbot 2008 ). Basic arguments put forward in the debate argue that innovation would result from an increased variety in the delivered services . Variety , in fact , is produced by the inclusion of a greater number of diverse and proactive actors as well as by a wider set of ICT-enabled services . The availability of new widespread and accessible service outcomes , then , could help in meeting people ’ s increasingly differentiated needs , thus improving the rate of success in achieving government effectiveness and efficiency ( Atkinson and McKay 2007 ).
This is but a reflection of a growing awareness about the need to develop a whole government approach ( OASIS 2011 ; OECD 2011 ) in which the inclusion of the many relationships between the public sector and their users is a core requirement to cope with the complexity of policymaking , and devise more effective policy actions . Although acknowledging the opportunity to have a system-wide approach to the government / governance relationships can be regarded as a major contribution in complexity thinking , its implementation in policy practices is still at a design stage ( Rhodes et al . 2011 ).
Coping with the different points of view and motivations by the main actors involved in policymaking , and namely by government organizations , societal partners and scientists , is one main problem to be tackled . Government , who is becoming progressively aware ( i ) that it has no monopoly on public authority , ( ii ) that its resources are shrinking , and ( iii ) that its actions can be more effective in concert with others , is mainly concerned with how to better leverage policy actions ( OECD 2011 ).
Partners ( the citizens , the firms , and the non-government organizations ( NGOs )) who , as a result of the increasing relevance of ICT networks and social networking tools , are gaining increasing confidence in their relational capabilities ( Fedorowicz and Sawer 2012 ; Murray , Caulier-Grice , and Mulgan 2010 ; Sawyer 2005 ), look for government openness and inclusion in the decision-making process ( Maier-Rabler and Huber 2011 ).
Scientists , concerned with the development of ICT empowered policy modeling tools , are challenged to bridge expert and folk domains , and create a more innovative prone human community ( Occelli and Semboloni 2011 ).
Actually , devising a whole government approach requires one to handle these interacting viewpoints and help in establishing more effective government and governance relationships .
This paper aims at giving evidence to the opportunity of developing such an approach , by emphasizing primarily the point of view of government actors , and namely of a group of agents , whose actions are informed by and inscribed in public institutions 2 .
cult to assess , thus preventing to have clear indications of the created benefits . The last issue , in particular , has recently stimulated a number of enquiries to define what innovation is about and how to measure it , according to the different types of services and tiers of government organizations ( national versus local ) ( see Australian Government Department of Innovation , Industry , Science and Research 2011 ; NESTA 2008 ; Bloch , et al . 2009 ).
2
Recalling the public institution role means that the controlling function of government — which include the means by which government policy is enforced and the mechanism for determining the policy itself — has also to comply with the commitment to its social purpose , i . e . seeing to the management of collective goods , promoting the value of public good .
78