Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 249–267 | Cite as

The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy

  • Michael McGann
  • Emma Blomkamp
  • Jenny M. Lewis
Research Article

Abstract

Governments are increasingly turning to public sector innovation (PSI) labs to take new approaches to policy and service design. This turn towards PSI labs, which has accelerated in more recent years, has been linked to a number of trends. These include growing interest in evidence-based policymaking and the application of ‘design thinking’ to policymaking, although these trends sit uncomfortably together. According to their proponents, PSI labs are helping to create a new era of experimental government and rapid experimentation in policy design. But what do these PSI labs do? How do they differ from other public sector change agents and policy actors? What approaches do they bring to addressing contemporary policymaking? And how do they relate to other developments in policy design such as the growing interest in evidence-based policy and design experiments? The rise of PSI labs has thus far received little attention from policy scientists. Focusing on the problems associated with conceptualising PSI labs and clearly situating them in the policy process, this paper provides an analysis of some of the most prominent PSI labs. It examines whether labs can be classified into distinct types, their relationship to government and other policy actors and the principal methodological practices and commitments underpinning their approach to policymaking. Throughout, the paper considers how the rise of PSI labs may challenge positivist framings of policymaking as an empirically driven decision process.

Keywords

Policy design Pubic sector innovation Public sector reform Policy lab Design thinking Evidence-based policymaking 

References

  1. Acevedo, S., & Dassen, N. (2016). Innovation for better management: The contribution of public innovation labs. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, D. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baekkeskov, E. (2016). Explaining science-led policy-making: Pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories. Policy Sciences, 49(4), 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, J., & Lloyd, P. (2016). The introduction of design to policymaking: Policy Lab and the UK government. In P. Lloyd & E. Bohemia (Eds.), Proceeceedings of DRS 2016: design + research + society (pp. 3619–3634). Brighton: Design Research Society.Google Scholar
  5. Bason, C. (2013). Discovering co-production by design. In E. Manzini & E. Staszowski (Eds.), Public and collaborative: Exploring the intersections of design, social innovation and public policy (pp. viii–xvi). New York: DESIS Network.Google Scholar
  6. Bason, C., & Schneider, A. (2014). Public design in global perspective: Empirical trends. In C. Bason (Ed.), Design for policy (pp. 23–40). Farnham, Surrey: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Burkett, I. (2016). Could prototyping reduce risks and increase the chance of success in policymaking? Presented at the Tacsifest, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  8. Carstensen, H. V., & Bason, C. (2012). Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can innovation labs help? The Innovation Journal, 17(1), 2–26.Google Scholar
  9. Centre for Public Impact. (2016). Briefing bulletin: design for policy and public services. Centre for Public Impact. https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/briefing-bulletin-design-for-policy-and-public-services/. Accessed November 3, 2016.
  10. Chen, D.-S., Lu-Lin, C., Hummels, C., & Koskinen, I. (2016). Social design: An introduction. International Journal of Design, 10(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  11. Christiansen, J. (2016). Embedding design: Towards cultural change in government. In B. Mager (Ed.), Service design impact report: public sector (pp. 48–59). Köln: Service Design Network.Google Scholar
  12. Clarence, E. (2002). Technocracy reinvented: The new evidence based policy movement. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Considine, M., & Lewis, J. M. (2003). Bureaucracy, network, or enterprise? Comparing models of governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(02), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craft, J., & Howlett, M. (2013). The dual dynamics of policy advisory systems: The impact of externalization and politicization on policy advice. Policy and Society, 32(3), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraussen, B., & Halpin, D. (2017). Think tanks and strategic policy-making: The contribution of think tanks to policy advisory systems. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller, M., & Lochard, A. (2016). Public policy labs in European Union member states. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
  18. GovLab. (2016). Who we are? The Gov Lab. http://www.thegovlab.org/about.html. Accessed November 11, 2016
  19. Gryszkiewicz, L., Lykourentzou, I., & Toivonen, T. (2016). Innovation labs: leveraging openness for radical innovation? (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2556692). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2556692. Accessed September 28, 2016.
  20. Hart, P. ’t, & Vromen, A. (2008). A new era for think tanks in public policy? International trends, Australian realities. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helsinki Design Lab. (2013). HDL closing in 2013. http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/moimoi. Accessed May 12, 2017.
  23. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Howlett, M., & Migone, A. (2013). Policy advice through the market: The role of external consultants in contemporary policy advisory systems. Policy and Society, 32(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jenson, J., & Harrisson, D. (2013). Social innovation research in the European Union: Approaches, findings and future directions. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
  27. John, P. (2014). Policy entrepreneurship in UK central government: The behavioural insights team and the use of randomized controlled trials. Public Policy and Administration, 29(3), 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kieboom, M. (2014). Lab matters: Challenging the practice of social innovation laboratories. Amsterdam: Kennisland.Google Scholar
  29. Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: Discovering policy lab. Brighton: University of Brighton.Google Scholar
  30. Kimbell, L. (2016). Design in the time of policy problems. In P. Lloyd & E. Bohemia (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS 2016: Design + research + society (pp. 3605–3618). Brighton: Design Research Society.Google Scholar
  31. La 27e Région. (2017). Territories in residence. La 27e Région. http://www.la27eregion.fr/en/residence/. Accessed February 22, 2017.
  32. Lewis, J. M., Lin, V., & Gibson, B. (2003). Evidence-based policy: A technocratic wish in a political world. Evidence-based health policy: Problems and possibilities (pp. 250–259). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulgan, G. (2014). The radical’s dilemma: An overview of the practice and prospects of Social and Public Labs. Social and public labs. https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/social_and_public_labs_-_and_the_radicals_dilemma.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2017.
  35. O’Rafferty, S., de Eyto, A., & Lewis, H. J. (2016). Open practices: Lessons from co-design of public services for behaviour change. In P. Lloyd & E. Bohemia (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS 2016: Design + research + society (pp. 3573–3590). Brighton: Design Research Society.Google Scholar
  36. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading Mass: Adison Wesley Public Comp.Google Scholar
  37. Parsons, W. (2002). From muddling through to muddling up—Evidence based policy making and the modernisation of British government. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pollitt, C., & Hupe, P. (2011). Talking about government: The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Potts, J., & Kastelle, T. (2010). Public sector innovation research: What’s next? Innovation, 12(2), 122–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Public Policy Forum. (2013). Changes labs and government in Canada. Ottawa: Canada’s Public Policy Forum.Google Scholar
  41. Puttick, R. (2014). Innovation teams and labs: A practice guide. London: NESTA. http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/innovation-teams-and-labs-practice-guide. Accessed October 12, 2016.
  42. Puttick, R., Baeck, P., & Colligan, P. (2014). I-Teams: The teams and funds making innovation happen in governments around the world. London: Nesta and Bloomberg Philanthropies.Google Scholar
  43. Rebolledo, N. (2016). The value of service design in policy making. In B. Mager (Ed.), Service design impact report: Public sector (pp. 40–46). Köln: Service Design Network.Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, A. (2014). Public sector innovation in the Australian public service. Public Manager, 43(1), 20–23.Google Scholar
  45. Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  46. Saint-Martin, D. (2001). How the reinventing government movement in public administration was exported from the US to other countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(6), 573–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schuurman, D., & Tõnurist, P. (2017). Innovation in the public sector: Exploring the characteristics and potential of living labs and innovation labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Selloni, D., & Staszowski, E. (2013). Gov innovation labs constellation 1.0. New York: PARSONS DESIS LAB. http://nyc.pubcollab.org/files/Gov_Innovation_Labs-Constellation_1.0.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2016.
  49. Siodmok, A. (2014). Designer policies. RSA Journal, 4, 24–29.Google Scholar
  50. Slow Research Lab. (2016). http://slowlab.net. Accessed December 22, 2016.
  51. Stoker, G., & John, P. (2009). Design experiments: engaging policy makers in the search for evidence about what works. Political Studies, 57(2), 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tenbensel, T. (2006). Policy knowledge for policy work. In H. K. Colebatch (Ed.), The work of policy: An international survey (pp. 199–215). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  53. The Studio DCC. (2014). Goodbye for now! https://dccstudio.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/goodbye-for-now/. Accessed May 12, 2017.
  54. Thompson, J. R., & Ingraham, P. W. (1996). The reinvention game. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tõnurist, P., Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2015). Discovering innovation labs in the public sector (No. 61). Norway: The Other Canon Foundation. http://hum.ttu.ee/wp/paper61.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2016.
  56. Tõnurist, P., Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2017). Innovation labs in the public sector: What they are and what they do? Public Management Review.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1287939.Google Scholar
  57. Torjman, L. (2012). Labs: Designing the future. Ontario: MaRS Discovery District.Google Scholar
  58. Veselỳ, A. (2013). Externalization of policy advice: Theory, methodology and evidence. Policy and Society, 32(3), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagle, U. (2000). The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen participation. Policy Sciences, 33(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williamson, B. (2015a). Governing methods: Policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(3), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williamson, B. (2015b). Testing governance: The laboratory lives and methods of policy innovation labs. Stirling: University of Stirling. https://codeactsineducation.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/testing-government/. Accessed October 12, 2016.
  63. Yu, H., & Robinson, D. G. (2012). The new ambiguity of ‘open government’ (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2012489). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2012489. Accessed November 18, 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social and Political SciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.The Policy Lab, School of Social and Political SciencesThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations