Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We use the term public sector innovation (PSI) lab to refer to the related concepts of ‘public policy’ and ‘public innovation’ labs.

References

  • Acevedo, S., & Dassen, N. (2016). Innovation for better management: The contribution of public innovation labs. Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, D. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baekkeskov, E. (2016). Explaining science-led policy-making: Pandemic deaths, epistemic deliberation and ideational trajectories. Policy Sciences, 49(4), 395–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Burkett, I. (2016). Could prototyping reduce risks and increase the chance of success in policymaking? Presented at the Tacsifest, Melbourne.

  • Carstensen, H. V., & Bason, C. (2012). Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can innovation labs help? The Innovation Journal, 17(1), 2–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Clarence, E. (2002). Technocracy reinvented: The new evidence based policy movement. Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, M., & Lochard, A. (2016). Public policy labs in European Union member states. Luxembourg: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • GovLab. (2016). Who we are? The Gov Lab. http://www.thegovlab.org/about.html. Accessed November 11, 2016

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helsinki Design Lab. (2013). HDL closing in 2013. http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/moimoi. Accessed May 12, 2017.

  • Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, J., & Harrisson, D. (2013). Social innovation research in the European Union: Approaches, findings and future directions. Luxembourg: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieboom, M. (2014). Lab matters: Challenging the practice of social innovation laboratories. Amsterdam: Kennisland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: Discovering policy lab. Brighton: University of Brighton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • La 27e Région. (2017). Territories in residence. La 27e Région. http://www.la27eregion.fr/en/residence/. Accessed February 22, 2017.

  • 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 

  • Mintrom, M., & Luetjens, J. (2016). Design thinking in policymaking processes: Opportunities and challenges. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(3), 391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading Mass: Adison Wesley Public Comp.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Hupe, P. (2011). Talking about government: The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potts, J., & Kastelle, T. (2010). Public sector innovation research: What’s next? Innovation, 12(2), 122–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Public Policy Forum. (2013). Changes labs and government in Canada. Ottawa: Canada’s Public Policy Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Roberts, A. (2014). Public sector innovation in the Australian public service. Public Manager, 43(1), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Siodmok, A. (2014). Designer policies. RSA Journal, 4, 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slow Research Lab. (2016). http://slowlab.net. Accessed December 22, 2016.

  • Stoker, G., & John, P. (2009). Design experiments: engaging policy makers in the search for evidence about what works. Political Studies, 57(2), 356–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • The Studio DCC. (2014). Goodbye for now! https://dccstudio.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/goodbye-for-now/. Accessed May 12, 2017.

  • Thompson, J. R., & Ingraham, P. W. (1996). The reinvention game. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 291–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Torjman, L. (2012). Labs: Designing the future. Ontario: MaRS Discovery District.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veselỳ, A. (2013). Externalization of policy advice: Theory, methodology and evidence. Policy and Society, 32(3), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagle, U. (2000). The policy science of democracy: The issues of methodology and citizen participation. Policy Sciences, 33(2), 207–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael McGann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McGann, M., Blomkamp, E. & Lewis, J.M. The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sci 51, 249–267 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9315-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9315-7

Keywords

Navigation