1. Questions
2. Comments
3. Innovations

[FSNCAN] Digest Number 122

Carlo Rubbia discussed this issue with me. He raised the Accelerator
Driven Systems, and the prospect of reducing radioactive waste to harmless ash while
co-generating electrical power. As you might expect, I was unable to comment on the
science.

Here are some pointers to information about Accelerator Driven
Systems:

Safety of Nuclear Waste Burners
http://ads_safety.jrc.it/

Introduction to Accelerator Driven Systems
http://www.neutron.kth.se/transmutation/introduction/

Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS) – Homepage
http://itumagill.fzk.de/ADS/
http://itumagill.fzk.de/ADS/whatsnew.html
http://itumagill.fzk.de/ADS/history.html

Accelerator-Driven Systems
http://www.kolej.mff.cuni.cz/~lmotm275/RUZE/17/node5.html

Disposition of Nuclear Wastes Using Subcritical Accelerator-Driven
Systems
http://www.uilondon.org/sym/1999/venneri.htm

Peter Turney

Updated

March 12, 2002

If you have any question or comment related to innovation please send them to The Innovation Journal. Your
participation in the journal helps us cater to your interests and remain current.

Consultations

1. Questionnaire
to Develop a Program for the Conference on Innovation

Dear friends and
colleagues,

I am chairing the planning committee for a Public Sector Innovation
Conference in January or February of 2002. The partners that have agreed to hold the
conference are the Canadian Centre for Management Development (the Government of Canada’s
management training school); Ecole d’administration publique du Canada, the Quebec
university public administration program; The Innovation Salon; and The Innovation
Journal.

We would very much appreciate your input to the planning process by
completing the questionnaire below. In it you will be asked to identify whether you might
be interested in attending, the most suitable date, and topics and speakers of interest to
you. We would very much appreciate your participation and the benefit of your knowledge.

The conference will also have a peer reviewed component, about which
you will being hearing soon.

If you Forward this memo and the questionnaire to: raymond.bouchard@attglobal.net the
responses will be collated automatically.

Thanks!

Eleanor Glor
Convener, The Innovation Salon
Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, The Innovation Journal

Questionnaire to Develop a Program for the
Conference on Innovation

In early February, we sent a questionnaire to a small group of
people interested in the subject of innovation. We were looking for thoughts on a vision
and direction for a Conference on Innovation in Government in January or
February 2002 in Ottawa.

As a result of input, the consensus vision statement developed is:

The conference on innovation will challenge managers to see beyond
today’s problems and obstacles, and prepare them to build a new public sector that
creatively engages emerging social, political and economic issues. This conference
provides the forum to share, discuss and learn how to nurture the creative spirit of
people and how to build the organisational climate conducive to innovation. The conference
will be a journey into the discovery of an exciting future for government’s organisations.

A further set of questions asked for advice on topics and themes. As
an overall observation, respondents wanted to see ‘practical, real-world’ presentations
that would show them examples of innovation in action as well as discussions of things
that make innovation work or fail. As a next step, we would like to solicit advice on how
large an event we should plan, the timing of the conference and speakers and topics. To do
this, we’ve developed the following questionnaire. We’d appreciate it if you could take
the time to respond. The questionnaire has been designed so that it can be filled in using
any e-mail program. If filled out properly, the replies can be automatically tabulated by
computer at our end.

To respond, you should FORWARD this e-mail to: raymond.bouchard@attglobal.net (In many
cases, the REPLY function would work too, but sometimes it does not re-send the original
e-mail, or it appends extra spaces or other characters.)

Filled out properly means that after every question there is a space
to put your answer. (E.g. for question 1, Q1, the answer section is labelled A1[_].) The
tabulating program will scan the returned e-mail and look for A1[x] at the left margin. It
can then pick up your response, which is x, having a value of 1 to 5. All you have to do
is put your answer between the square brackets [_].

The form of response for all questions, except those specifically
calling for free form text, is:

1 – strongly disagree
2 – disagree
3 – indifferent
4 – agree
5 – strongly agree

In free form text, INSERT anything you want between the brackets,
including carriage returns. The only character you can’t use are square brackets [ ] since
they are used as delimiters for the tabulating program. Here’s the questionnaire:

SIZE OF EVENT

Are you interested in attending the conference on
innovation?

Q1: I am likely to attend a conference on innovation in
January/February 2002 in Ottawa, Canada.

A1[_]

TIMING

We have identified three dates for the conference. We would like
your opinion on the best time to hold the conference. If you have no preference one way or
the other, just answer 3 = indifferent.

Q2: I would prefer a conference on Jan 10 – 11, 2002.

A2 [_]

Q3: I would prefer a conference on Jan 21 – 22, 2002.

A3 [_]

Q4: I would prefer a conference on Feb 5 – 6, 2002.

A4 [_]

TOPICS AND SPEAKERS

The first questionnaire identified preferences for four general
themes:
case studies; the innovation process; the innovation context /environment; and
tools/capacities.

Keynote Speakers

Q5. What should the plenary speakers address? Who would you
recommend as a keynote speaker that could speak to one or all of these themes? Please use
free form text.

A5 [_]

Case Studies:

Case studies are concise descriptions of an example of innovation.
Their usefulness derives from the lessons to be learned in implementing innovation

Q6. Using free form text, could you give examples of cases of
(public sector) innovation that should be presented at the conference. Also, if you are
aware of possible speakers, include their names and contact information as well.

A6 [_]

Innovation Process:

The innovation process is the pathway, the steps and stages that

lead to the creation of an innovation.

Q7. Using free form text, could you give ideas for papers on the
innovation process that could be presented at the conference. Also, if you are aware of
possible speakers, include their names and contact information as well.

A7 [_]

Innovation Context/Environment

The innovation context is the broader environment within which
innovation is created. This includes societal elements like political ideology, power
relationships, social relationships, and the pervasive funding or investment climate. It
also includes the organizational culture.

Q8. Using free form text, could you give ideas of possible papers on
how context and environment impact innovations? Also, if you are aware of possible
speakers, include their names and contact information as well.

A8 [_]

Tools and Capacities

This is the people side of innovation. Sessions would address such
issues as skills, personal and organisation capacities, motivation, tools and techniques
for facilitating creativity and innovation and for evaluating their impacts.

Q9. Using free form text, could you give ideas of possible papers,
presentations or workshops on tools and capacities to enhance and introduce innovation?
Also, if you are aware of possible speakers, include their names and contact information
as well.

A9 [_]

Thank you very much for your input. We hope to see you at the
conference.

Survey prepared by:

Raymond Bouchard
Drachma-Denarius
#143-2111 Montreal Road
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1J 8M8
phone: (613) 745-9520 Fax: (613) 745-6496

Updated

May 29, 2001 Revised Nov 2009

2. A Consultation with
Innovation Journal Readers: Should We Hold a Conference on Public Sector Innovation?
If so, What Should it Discuss?

The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 6(1), 2001, article 4.

A Consultation with Innovation Journal Readers (PDF)

Should We Hold a Workshop/Symposium on Public
Sector Innovation?

If so, What Should it Discuss?

Thank you for your interest in this virtual consultation. As a
participant you,
along with the other participants, will be able to contribute to a shared
understanding of the potential role that The Innovation Journal and a conference on
innovation can play in addressing the long term issues around government innovation facing
citizens everywhere.

This consultation is investigative and exploratory. It seeks to find
ways to address the main public policy and administrative innovations that are occurring
and that need to be invented in the government sector, and to find ways to alter the
fundamental relationship between government and
innovation.

What would you like to see discussed at such a conference? Would you
participate on an online workshop? What topic(s) would you address, and from what
perspective? Who would you like to see speak at such a conference, on what topics?

Some Ideas Presented So Far:

A. Where?

A workshop/symposium held in Canada [this is the first workshop, and
the Innovation Journal is headquartered in Canada, so we like the idea of holding it here
the first time.

B. Identify session chairs who prepare the questions for the
workshop and report at the end.

Who?

C. Ideas for Agenda Items and Suggested Speakers and
Paper-Givers

I. Keynote Speaker:

Who? Everett Rogers, head of Dpt. of Communications, University
of New Mexico, USA; author of The Diffusion of Innovations.

II. Focus on the Future.

–Develop a vision of government’s role in innovation three
to five decades into the future.
–Identify the potential technologies, services and strategies that citizens could use
in the period 2030 to 2050.
–Outline the boundaries and possibilities for the contribution of new technologies,
fuels, strategies.
–Identify long-term priorities and advise appropriate and possible strategies for
their development and possible commercialisation.
–Develop amongst a network of domestic and international experts a shared view of
Canada’s long-term technology, human and policy needs, and seek their advice and
opinion for future strategy and technology development.

III. The Innovation Process

–Is Innovation a Question or Will or Circumstance? Eleanor Glor

IV. Implications of Telecommunications Revolution for Government

–e-democracy: voting, citizen involvement
–Citizens are better informed
–Educating citizens so they can make decisions. e.g. Yetsel Dhror
–Government online (GOL): transactions with government online
–More information producing increased demands for government accountability:
–How taxes are being spent e.g. how increased expenditures on police relate to the
crime rate.
–Greater access and links makes clearer who is doing what, so citizens and interest
groups are asking: “Who is accountable?”
–The implications of European and Canadian Initiatives to Create Egovernment
–Canadian, American, European and Asian leaders (Singapore/Malaysia)
–How can governments govern now, with so much electronic access? e.g. Reg Alcock,
M.P.; Duncan Bailey, TBS, doing Ph.D. on this.
– Implications of Ecommerce for Government
– Funding government in an international economy: Paula Tiihonen, Secretary, Committee for
the Future, Parliament of Finland
– Possible innovations: The bit tax, etc.
– The technological future
– Technology
– Implications of hard-wired vs mobile
– Etc.

V. Innovations and Health

–Increased use of telecommunications
– Smartcards
– Online health info
– Health networks
– Delivering health care through the Internet
– diagnosis
– surgery
–The impact of technology on health:
–Climate change, changes in the nutrients of food, toxins.
–New medical technologies: Does technology make us healthier?
–Attempts toward a long-range integration of science thinking and issues
–Federal government interdepartmental committee

VI. Innovations in Intergovernmental and Public-Private
Partnerships

–Examples of innovations: What has worked, what has not.
–The ethics of innovation
–Accountability
–Does government have the capacity to manage all these contracts and partnerships?

VII. The Role of Government in Innovation

– Support physical and research infrastructure
– Picking winners and losers
– Picking innovators
– Creating an environment, educating workers
– Scientific and Technological R&D
–Addressing inequality
–Innovation awards

VIII. Summary of the Results of the Workshop, by Section

–Session chairs report

D. The Next Workshop

Should there be/who should sponsor/participate in a subsequent
workshop/symposium? Where should it be?

E. How to Participate

This Innovation Journal consultation commenced December 15,
2000. You may comment by completing and submitting the attached form. To learn more about
the workshop and ideas for the scope of its activities you may write to: Eleanor Glor [hot
link]

If you no longer wish to be part of the conference and you want to
be deleted from the distribution list please send an e-mail at any time to: Eleanor Glor and type “unsubscribe to
consultation in the subject area.

You may wish to bookmark this page to return to after you are
registered.

Published

May 27, 2001

3. The Innovation Journal extends an invitation to participate in the discussion about
its future.

In order to improve The Innovation Journal, we are
conducting a consultation process with interested individuals. Some of the responses
already received are listed below. If you would like to contribute, please read and reply
to our questionnaire (below). Don’t forget the blank lines before and after the
article text.

An Invitation to Participate

From: Editor, Innovation Journal

To: You

Re: Innovation Journal Consultation

I want to invite you to participate in the discussion about the
future of The Innovation Journal.

The process for the conversations will be as follows:

• I prepare the questions (see below)
• each participant emails me in response, indicating the number and
  nature of the question to which he/she is responding
• I post edited comments on The Innovation Journal (except of course
  individual’s names and personal information).

I suggest that the consultation will be limited to the topic of how
to improve The Innovation Journal, rather than any discussion of the possibility of
expanding its area of coverage beyond innovation in the public sector (unless you want to
speak to that topic as well). The focus of the consultation will thus be on how to make
The Innovation Journal the best little journal on innovation we can make it, as the editor
of the International Review of Administrative Sciences suggested.

One of the important outcomes I hope to achieve from the
consultation is to develop a truly international editorial board, which can secure
articles from the municipal, provincial/state and federal/national level in many
countries, and to create contacts which will allow us to secure those articles.

If you can, please focus your comments on the following issues. If
you feel other issues should be addressed, please let me know.

Q. 1- How to make the IJ the best little journal on public sector
innovation that it can be?

Q.2 – Who are the readers we are trying to attract?

1. Public sector/alternate service delivery agency
   managers/policy/program public servants, PIPEs (Public Interest Private Enterprise), PINAs
   (Public Interest Non-profit Agencies), academics, students?
2. Local, provincial, national, international government?

Q. 3 –

1. What should the IJ cover?
   • Only innovation, narrowly defined; public administration reform more
     generally; local, provincial/state, national, international?
   • Articles, speeches by professionals, academics, students, management
     consultants?
   • How should the agenda at the beginning be organized?
   • Subject areas: the learning organization, the innovation process,
     examples of innovation, government subject areas e.g. health, criminal justice, defence…
   • One way/interactive?
2. Please provide suggestions for topics
3. Suggestions for authors
4. Suggestions for books/reports to review
5. Suggestions for humour
6. Suggestions for topics to debate and who could debate them.
7. Who could review articles on what subjects?
8. Which other sites (include addresses) should we link to?
9. How can we contribute to knowledge of best practices without staff?
10. How would we weed out enthusiasm from genuine improvement?
11. Who is interested in innovation? names, addresses, phone and fax
    numbers and email addresses, please, if you have them.

Q.4 – How do we deal with barriers: not currently peer reviewed, no
intellectual property rights, no permanent record, uncertain how many years it will last.

Q.5 – What would constitute success?

Editor, The Innovation Journal

Updated

May 27, 2001 Revised Nov 2009

Here is a list of a few of the responses we have received so far:

response by city manager of a large
Canadian city

Q. 1- How to make the IJ the best
little journal on public sector innovation that it can be?

THE CRITERIA FOR “THE BEST LITTLE JOURNAL ON PUBLIC SECTOR INNOVATION” ARE
SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT AND WIDE READERSHIP. TO THAT END, A COMBINATION OF SHORT ARTICLES
WHICH ARE EMAILED (A LISTSERV OR WEB PUSH TECHNOLOGY) AND LONGER ARTICLES AVAILABLE FOR
DOWNLOAD WOULD WORK WELL. PERHAPS PEOPLE WHO SUBMIT ARTICLES COULD SUGGEST THOSE WHO MIGHT
BE INTERESTED IN RECEVING A REGULAR “EMAILING”. THE JOURNAL WILL BE AS GOOD AS
THE ARTICLES THAT ALL OF US TAKE TIME TO WRITE AND SUBMIT — BROADER AWARENESS WILL HELP.

Q.2 – Who are the readers we are trying to attract?

PEOPLE WHO MANAGE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, BOTH THOSE WHO ARE ATTEMPTING INNOVATION AND
THOSE WHO SHOULD BE!

a. Public sector/alternate service delivery agency managers/policy/program public
servants, PIPEs (Public Interest Private Enterprise), PINAs (Public Interest Non-profit
Agencies), academics, students?

YES

b. Local, provincial, national, international government?

YES — THOUGH WE MAY WANT TO LIMIT ARTICLES TO THOSE RELEVANT TO A NORTH AMERICAN
AUDIENCE.

Q. 3a What should the IJ cover? – Only innovation, narrowly defined? Public
administration reform more generally? Local, provincial/state, national, or international?

INNOVATION BROADLY DEFINED — RESTRUCTURING, REENGINEERING, ASD, TECHNOLOGY
IMPLEMENTATION.

– Articles, speeches by professionals, academics, students, management consultants?

IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA, ANY AND ALL OF THE ABOVE.

– How should the agenda at the beginning be organized?
– Subject areas: the learning organization, the innovation process, examples of
innovation, government subject areas e.g. health, criminal justice, defence…

I THINK THE AGENDA SHOULD BE ORGANIZED BROADLY AROUND THE TYPE OF INNOVATION, RATHER
THAN BY SUBJECT AREA OR LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. OBVIOUSLY, EXAMPLES OF INNOVATION AND
MANAGING INNOVATION ARE OF BROAD INTEREST.

– One way/interactive?

PUSH — WITH A NEWSGROUP OR LISTSERV TO SUPPORT INTERACTION IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT
INTEREST.

b. Please provide suggestions for topics

EXAMPLES OF INNOVATION, AS NOTED ABOVE — THE RANGE IS VERY BROAD. PERHAPS EACH OF YOUR
RESPONDENTS HERE SHOULD PROVIDE AN ARTICLE FROM THEIR AREA.

c. Suggestions for authors

See above.

d. Suggestions for books/reports to review

NO IMMEDIATE SUGGESTIONS.

e. Suggestions for humour

WILL ROGERS SAID SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF “I DON’T KNOW JOKES — I JUST WATCH
THE GOVERNMENT AND REPORT THE FACTS”. THERE IS LOTS OF HUMOUR IN THE WORK WE DO.

f. Suggestions for topics to debate and who could debate them.

PERHAPS IJ SHOULD POST SHORT NOTES ON INTERESTING DEVELOPMENTS AND ASK FOR
COMMENTS/DEBATE — THE TORONTO AMALGAMATION OFFERS ONE EXAMPLE.

g. Who could review articles on what subjects?

IF THERE IS A SUFFICIENTLY BROAD READERSHIP, IJ COULD POST CONTINUING NOTICES
REQUESTING REVIEWS.

h. Which other sites (include addresses) should we link to?

GOVERNMENT SITES WHICH POST REPORTS AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL. CITY OF VANCOUVER FOR
ONE HTTP:\\WWW.CITY.VANCOUVER.BC.CA. THERE ARE LOTS, AND AGAIN ONE COULD ASK THOSE WHO
VISIT TO SUGGEST LINKS. CAMA IS APPARENTLY ABOUT TO OPEN A WEB SITE — OTHER PROFESSIONAL
GROUPS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

i. How can we contribute to knowledge of best practices without staff?

THE WORK OF MAINTAINING A LISTSERV OR NEWSGROUP MAY BE CONSIDERABLE — I DON’T KNOW.
MATERIAL FROM VOLUNTEER CONTRIBUTORS, LINKS TO OTHER RELEVANT SITES. THE TECHNOLOGY SHOULD
GET SIMPLER AND MORE WIDESPREAD, SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN CONTRIBUTE INDIVIDUALLY.

j. How would we weed out enthusiasm from genuine improvement?

I DON’T KNOW THAT THIS IS CRITICAL. TO SOME DEGREE, THE READER WILL HAVE TO APPLY THIS
JUDGEMENT. IJ MIGHT NEED TO RESTRICT POTENTIAL LUNATIC FRINGE CONTRIBUTORS, BUT BEYOND
THIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT “INNOVATORS” SHOULD BE WELCOME.

k. Who is interested in innovation? names, addresses, phone and fax numbers and
email addresses, please, if you have them.

THIS IS A CHALLENGE WHICH IS BEST MET INCREMENTALLY, BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LIST WHEN
THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ENCOUNTERED.

Q.4 – How do we deal with barriers: not currently peer reviewed, no intellectual
property rights, no permanent record, uncertain how many years it will last.

WHY WORRY. IF IT WORKS, IT WILL LAST. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE A
CONCERN IF WE ARE CIRCULATING INFORMATION ABOUT INNOVATION. THE SUBJECT IS TO SOME DEGREE
EPHEMERAL BY NATURE.

Q. 5 – What would constitute success?

A SITE THAT PEOPLE VISIT TO DOWNLOAD RELEVANT MATERIAL, A REGULAR IJ EMAILING THAT
CREATES THAT INTEREST, THE SPREAD OF RELEVANT INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT INNOVATION.

Updated

November 02, 1998 Revised Nov 2009

• response by a professor of politics and
  management of a Canadian university

  Q. 1- How to make the IJ the best
  little journal on public sector innovation that it can be?

  – PUBLISH A SMALL NUMBER OF HIGH QUALITY PAPERS. THE TEMPTATION TO PUBLISH EVERYTHING
  YOU CAN GET/IS AVAILABLE SHOULD BE RESISTED. FOCUS ON GENUINE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE SENSE
  OF PAPERS WHICH EITHER PROVIDE NEW THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL INSIGHTS OR WHICH MATERIALLY
  INFORM MANAGEMENT PRACTICE.

  Q.2 – Who are the readers we are trying to attract?

  ACTIVE RESEARCHERS AND SCHOLARS, INNOVATION CHAMPIONS AND OTHER PRACTITIONERS WITH A
  GENUINE/INFORMED INTEREST IN P.S. REFORM AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. THE OTHER READERS
  WILL COME IF YOU CAN SATISFY THESE TWO GROUPS.

  Q. 3a. What should the IJ cover?
  – Only innovation, narrowly defined? public administration reform more generally? local,
  provincial/state, national, or international?

  FOCUS ON INNOVATION WITHIN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM. PEOPLE
  DISAGREE AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES INNOVATION VS REFORM.. WHAT YOU MIGHT ELIMINATE IS A FOCUS
  ON “CHANGE” WHICH DOESN’T REALLY CONSTITUTE REFORM OR INNOVATION MORE STRICTLY
  DEFINED. ONE POSSIBLE PROBLEM WITH THIS, I SUPPOSE, IS THAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT CONSIDER A
  TOPIC LIKE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT A CHANGE RATHER THAN A REFORM.

  – Articles, speeches by professionals, academics, students, management consultants?

  ONLY IF THEY ARE OF HIGH QUALITY

  – Subject areas: the learning organization, the innovation process, examples of
  innovation, government subject areas e.g. health, criminal justice, defence…

  ALL THE MAJOR AREAS OF INNOVATION – PARTNERSHIPS, EMPOWERMENT, TECHNOLOGY, ETC: I AM
  LESS INTERESTED IN PARTICULAR POLICY FIELDS BUT AN OCCASIONAL SPECIAL ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL
  FOCUSING ON INNOVATIONS IN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FIELD OF HEALTH POLICY, MIGHT BE ATTRACTIVE
  IF SOMEBODY DRAWS OUT FROM THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THE LEARNING POINTS FOR P.A. IN GENERAL,
  BOTH THEORY AND PRACTICE.

  – One way/interactive?

  ONE WAY. COULD HAVE A LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SECTION RESPONDING TO PUBLISHED PIECES.

  b. Please provide suggestions for topics

  EMPOWERMENT. TEAMS. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION. PERFORMANCE
  MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS.

  c. Suggestions for authors

  AS AN ACADEMIC, I WOULD BE ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM PRACTITIONERS WHO HAVE
  A THEORETICAL/CONCEPTUAL BENT.

  d. Suggestions for books/reports to review

  YOU MIGHT WANT TO WRITE TO A WHOLE LOT OF PUBLISHERS TELLING THEM ABOUT THE JOURNAL AND
  ASKING THEM TO SEND YOU BOOKS FOR REVIEW IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED SUBJECT-AREAS. SOME OF THE
  US PUBLISHERS HAVE A LOT OF GOOD PUBLICATIONS ON P.A., REFORM ETC: – E.G. DEKKER

  e. Suggestions for humour

  P.A. IS NOT A LAUGHING MATTER (HO HO)

  f. Suggestions for topics to debate and who could debate them.

  YOU COULD TAKE SOME OF THE MAJOR INNOVATION AREAS, E.G., PARTNERSHIPS AND HAVE A DEBATE
  ON THEIR UTILITY. E.G., WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I
  HAVE REFERRED TO FOR SOME TIME AS THE W-5 QUESTION. WHAT WORKS WELL WHERE – AND WHY?

  g. Who could review articles on what subjects?

  TOO LARGE A QUESTION. WOULD HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH RE PARTICULAR ARTICLES AND SUBJECTS.

  h. Which other sites (include addresses) should we link to?

  WON’T A PERUSAL OF THE NET TURN UP A LOT OF SITES – COULD START FOR EXAMPLE WITH THE

  NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW SITE AND GO FROM THERE. THERE IS OF COURSE VPAC, OECD ETC:

  i. How can we contribute to knowledge of best practices without staff?

  NOT SURE WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND HERE. IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT STAFF TO MANAGE THE
  JOURNAL YOU MIGHT CONSIDER APPOINTING AN ASSOCIATE EDITOR AND A BOOK REVIEW EDITOR, FOR
  EXAMPLE.

  j. Who is interested in innovation? names, addresses, phone and fax numbers and
  email addresses, please, if you have them.

  BIG QUESTION – I’LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS ONE. LET ME MENTION JUST A FEW PEOPLE
  ASIDE FROM THOSE ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS – PAUL THOMAS (POL. SCIENCE, U. OF MANITOBA),
  PETER AUCOIN (POL. SC. – DALHOUSIE), JOHN LANGFORD – SCHOOL OF P.A. – U. OF VICTORIA),
  EVERT LINDQUIST (POL. SC. – TORONTO), THE IPAC PROFESSIONAL STAFF, YOU COULD PROBABLY GET
  A LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF VPAC ETC.

  Q.4 – How do we deal with barriers: not currently peer reviewed, no intellectual
  property rights, no permanent record, uncertain how many years it will last.

  PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE PEER REVIEWED ASAP.

  WHY CAN’T THERE BE A PERMANENT RECORD?

  Q. 5 – What would constitute success?

  REPUTATION FOR HIGH QUALITY PIECES AMONG P.A. ACADEMICS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS. REFERENCES
  TO THESE PIECES IN OTHER PUBLICATIONS. REASONABLE NUMBER OF UNSOLICITED SUBMISSIONS.

  SOMEWHAT CONTRARY TO WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOVE, I WONDER IF THERE MIGHT BE ROOM FOR A
  SPECIAL “QUICK AND DIRTY” SECTION WHICH BRINGS US ALL UP TO DATE ON RECENT
  REFORMS/INNOVATIONS – VERY BRIEF – THE ESSENCE OF WHAT IS BEING DONE AND WHERE TO GET MORE
  INFORMATION. THE IPAC INNOVATION NEWSLETTER DOES A LITTLE OF THIS.

  Updated
  
  November 02, 1998 Revised Nov 2009
  
  

• response by a professor of government and
  public administration, Pacific Rim

  Q. 1- How to make the IJ the best
  little journal on public sector innovation that it can be?

  A TIMELY AND SPONTANEOUS RESPONSE FROM EACH CONTRIBUTOR WILL BE A CRUCIAL FACTOR. SINCE
  WE ARE NOT IN A CONSTANT AND DIRECT CONTACT WITH EACH COUNTRY, INFORMATION IN A TIMELY
  FASHION WILL BE OF GREAT HELP.

  Q.2 – Who are the readers we are trying to attract?

  a. Public sector/alternate service delivery agency managers/policy/program public
  servants, PIPEs (Public Interest Private >Enterprise), PINAs (Public Interest
  Non-profit Agencies), academics, students?
  b. Local, provincial, national, international government?

  MY FEELING IS THAT DECISION MAKERS OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE TRYING TO
  SEEK MEANINGFUL IDEAS AND TOOLS TO ENHANCE INNOVATIONS IN A DAY-TO-DAY WORK. THE MINISTRY
  OF HOME AFFAIRS OF JAPAN ISSSUES A DIRECTIVE OF NOV.14 TO CALL FOR MORE ORGANIZED
  ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM EFFORTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. IT REQUESTS, FOR EXAMPLE, A CONCRETE
  GOAL FOR STAFF REDUCTION AS WELL AS DEFICIT MANAGEMENT. THEY REALLY NEED TRULY EFFECTIVE
  COURSE OF ACTION BASED ON THEORY AND PRACTICE. I AM INVOLVED IN THESE EFFORTS IN MAJOR
  PREFECTURAL AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS.
  INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WOULD NOT BE AS INTERESTED IN THE JOURNAL, ALTHOUGH SOME OF
  THEM ARE ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT METHODS TO EVALUATE THE
  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POLICY. JAPAN INTERNATIONAL AND COOPERATION AGENCY(JICA) IS ALSO
  TRYING TO BUILD MORE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR OVERFSEAS DEVELOPMENT AID.

  Q. 3a. What should the IJ cover? – Only innovation, narrowly defined? public
  administration reform more generally? Local, provincial/state, national, or international?

  WE CAN COVER ANY INNOVATION. BUT DO NOT EXPAND IT TO GENERAL IDEA OF MANAGEMENT. WE
  HAVE PLENTY OF JOURNALS AND PERIODICALS.

  – Articles, speeches by professionals, academics, students, management consultants?

  YES.

  – How should the agenda at the beginning be organized?
  – Subject areas: the learning organization, the innovation process, examples of
  innovation, government subject areas e.g. health, criminal justice, defence…

  I MYSELF AM NOT SO MUCH INTERESTED IN DETAILS OF SPECIFIC AREAS WITH WHICH I AM NOT
  FAMILIAR.

  – One way/interactive?

  HOPEFULLY INTERACTIVE.

  b. Please provide suggestions for topics

  MANAGEMENT BASED ON EVALUATION WHICH IS NOW IN THE EXPERIMENTAL STAGE IN LOCAL
  GOVERNMENT IN JAPAN, BUT WILL BE EXPANDED TO NATIONAL LEVEL. THE ADMINISTRATIOVE
  COMMISSION HEADED BY THE PRIME MINISTER ISSUED A FINAL REPORT ON DEC. 3, 1997. IT CALLED
  FOR THAT KIND OF MANAGEMENT AT THE CENTRAL LEVEL.

  THIS WOULD RAISE A GREAT INTEREST IN BOTH CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGERS.

  c. Who is interested in innovation? names, addresses, phone and fax numbers and
  email addresses, please, if you have them.

  THE JAPAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION HAS A RESEARCH PROJECT WHICH WILL FACILITATE THE
  APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TO MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. I AM SERVING AS A CHAIR.
  THE REPORT WILL BE PUBLISHED NEXT MONTH, AND SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE STARTED TO APPLY
  THE CONCEPT IN THEIR MANAGEMNT ACTIVITIES.

  Q.4 – How do we deal with barriers: not currently peer reviewed, no intellectual
  property rights, no permanent record, uncertain how many years it will last.

  HOW ABOUT SETTING THE LIFE FOR FIVE YEARS, FOR EXAMPLE.

  Q. 5 – What would constitute success?

  CONTINUED CONTRIBUTION AND INTEREST OF PARTICIPANTS

  Updated
  
  November 02, 1998 Revised Nov 2009
  
  

• response by a professor of policy studies
  of a Canadian university

  Q. 1- How to make the IJ the best
  little journal on public sector innovation that it can be?

  TIMELY, COLORFUL, WITH SHORT, WELL-WRITTEN ARTICLES.

  Q.2 – Who are the readers we are trying to attract?

  MANAGERS IN VARIOUS ENTITIES IN THE PARA-PUBLIC SECTOR; EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS;
  POLITICIANS; MEDIA. A WEB-BASED JOURNAL THAT MANY CAN TURN TO TO FIND OUT WHAT’S HOT.

  Q. 3a. What should the IJ cover?
  – Only innovation, narrowly defined? public administration reform more generally? local,
  provincial/state, national, or international?

  IS “INTERESTING PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM” A FUDGE BETWEEN CATEGORIES?
  EXCLUDE INTERNATIONAL, IF YOU MEAN REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; BUT INCLUDE, IN
  A VERY LIMITED WAY, IF YOU MEAN LESSONS FROM ABROAD.

  – Articles, speeches by professionals, academics, students, management consultants?

  SHORT, WELL-WRITTEN ARTICLES (IE. UNDER 1000 WORDS). NO SPEECHES!

  – How should the agenda at the beginning be organized?
  – Subject areas: the learning organization, the innovation process, examples of
  innovation, government subject areas e.g. health, criminal justice, defence…
  – One way/interactive?

  IN MY EXPERIENCE, INTERACTIVE NEVER WORKS, AND IT’S TIME CONSUMING.

  b. Please provide suggestions for topics

  HOW ABOUT OPINION PIECES ON SOME RECENT REFORM?

  c. Suggestions for authors

  I WONDER WHETHER YOU COULD INDUCE DAVID OSBORNE TO WRITE A SHORT PIECE ON HIS
  RELATIVELY NEW BOOK.

  d. Suggestions for humour

  WOULDN’T BOTHER.

  e. Suggestions for topics to debate and who could debate them.

  OPERATING AGENCIES: IS THE FED GOV’T GOING FAR ENOUGH FAST ENOUGH?

  f. Who could review articles on what subjects?
  g. Which other sites (include addresses) should we link to?

  NOT SURE I WOULD BOTHER MUCH WITH THIS.

  Q.4 – How do we deal with barriers: not currently peer reviewed, no intellectual
  property rights, no permanent record, uncertain how many years it will last.

  DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT. TREAT IT AS A PERISHABLE COMMODITY.

  Q. 5 – What would constitute success?

  GETTING MENTIONED IN HUGH WINSOR’S COLUMN.

  Updated
  
  November 02, 1998 Revised Nov 2009
  
  

• response by a Canada community college
  teacher

  BEFORE I DEAL WITH YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THERE ARE TWO QUITE UNRELATED MATTERS THAT
  I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS.

  FIRST, BEING A COLLEGE TEACHER I HAVE NO ACCESS TO SERIOUSLY HIGH-TECH COMMUNICATIONS
  DEVICES AT MY WORK PLACE AND CANNOT AFFORD THEM AT HOME. SO, THOUGH I HAVE LONG BEEN
  PROMISED E-MAIL AND INTERNET FACILITIES, I AM FOR THE MOMENT DEPENDENT ON THE FAX. THE
  PERTINENT EFFECT IS THAT I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN The Innovation Journal.
  NONE THE LESS, PEOPLE TELL ME THAT IN CYBERSPACE MUCH ATTENTION IS PAID TO (AND THEREFORE
  CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO ENHANCE) WHAT PRINT PUBLISHERS COMMONLY CALLED “PRODUCTION
  VALUES.” SINCE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IJ LOOKS LIKE, I ALSO HAVE NO IDEA OF WHETHER OR
  NOT IT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT, NOR WOULD I BEGIN TO KNOW HOW TO IMPROVE IT IF IT NEEDED IT. I
  DID TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT, HOWEVER, THAT ONLY “CONTENT” AND “AUDIENCE”
  ISSUES WERE RAISED IN YOUR NOTE AND I WONDERED IF “DESIGN” AND
  “FORMAT” SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL.

  SECOND, I THOUGHT I’D IDENTIFY A THEME THAT WILL BE IMPLICIT IF NOT EXPLICIT IN MY
  ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND THAT MAY BE OF SOME IMPORTANCE WHEN COMING TO CONCLUSIONS
  ABOUT WHAT IS TO BE DONE. THE THEME IS THAT DREARY OLD DEBATE BETWEEN “THEORY VERSUS
  PRACTICE.” I WORRY THAT SOME TIME MIGHT BE LOST (AT LEAST AS FAR AS MY COMMENTS ARE
  CONCERNED) IF I DON’T SAY AT THE OUTSET THAT I HAVE NEVER KNOWN THE DIFFERENCE OR, MORE
  ACCURATELY, THAT I HAVE NEVER ACCEPTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT
  CONSTITUTE AN INSTANCE OF EITHER/OR PRACTITIONERS WHO DISDAIN “THEORY” DO NOT
  (LITERALLY) KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING; THEORISTS WHO ARE INDIFFERENT TO THE PRACTICAL
  EFFECTS OF THEIR IDEAS ARE DOING NOTHING. SO, I’D ADVISE A NICE MIX OF CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH
  EXPLORE THE ENTIRE THEORY-PRACTICE CONTINUUM AND WHICH, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, DISCUSS BOTH
  THE NORMATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF EMPIRICAL PIECES AND THE EMPIRICAL CONSEQUENCES OF NORMATIVE
  DECISIONS.

  NOW THEN, WITH THAT OFF MY CHEST, I’LL PROCEED:

  Q1. How to make IJ the best little journal … ?

  THE QUICK ANSWER IS: HAVE NO FEAR. THE CYBERWORLD OF ELECTRONIC JOURNALS IS BORDERLESS,
  OVERCROWDED AND INTELLECTUALLY MALNOURISHED. TO SURVIVE IS EASY ENOUGH. TO BE NOTICED IS
  MORE DIFFICULT. TO BE GOOD (TO SAY NOTHING OF BEING THE “BEST”) IS NOT ONLY
  “IMPOSSIBLE” BUT, UNLIKE THE TASKS OF THE U.S. MARINES, CANNOT “TAKE A
  LITTLE LONGER.” IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE AN IMPACT AS CLOSE TO INSTANTANEOUSLY AS
  POSSIBLE, FOR THIS IS NOT QUITE THE KIND OF ENTERPRISE THAT CAN GROW SLOWLY AND STEADILY
  OVER THE YEARS.

  WHAT IS NEEDED IS GOOD QUALITY CONTENT THAT WILL GRAB THE READERS’ ATTENTION. THIS MAY
  BE INVOLVE RECRUITING STAR-QUALITY AUTHORS OR, AS A SUBSTITUTE, PROMINANT POLITICIANS AND
  DIVERSE INTEREST GROUP ADVOCATES FROM GREENPEACE TO THE FRASER INSTITUTE WHOSE WORK IS
  AVAILABLE, FREE AND GENERALLY OPEN FOR ADAPTATION, ABRIDGMENT AND EVEN SUBSTANTIAL
  RE-WRITING.

  I EAGERLY SUPPORT YOUR IDEA THAT PART OF IJ SHOULD BE ABOUT “DEBATE” (AS YOU
  MENTION UNDER Q. 3 [F]). I BELIEVE THAT A REGULAR (PERHAPS A SEMI-ANNUAL) FEATURE COULD BE
  A KIND OF “VIRTUAL FORUM” IN WHICH PROMINANT ACADEMICS, POLICY MAKERS AND
  INTERESTED EXPERTS COULD CONTRIBUTE SHORT PAPERS ON A SPECIFIC THEME AND ENTER INTO A
  MODEST TECHNOLOGICALLY MEDIATED SYMPOSIUM. THIS MIGHT INVOLVE GETTING, SAY, SIX PEOPLE TO
  WRITE ON A TOPIC, SENDING EACH CONTRIBUTOR THE OTHERS’ PAPERS PRIOR TO PUBLICATION, AND
  FOLLOWING EACH CONTRIBUTION WITH BRIEF COMMENTS BY THE OTHER WRITERS. COLLECTING A NUMBER
  OF THESE (POSSIBLY WITH READERS’ COMMENTS AS WELL) INTO A BOOK OR BOOKLET FOR SALE WOULD
  NOT BE IMPOSSIBLE AND COULD EVEN SUPPLY A LITTLE REVENUE (IF WANTED OR NEEDED).

  SINCE THIS IS ALSO THE ERA OF “TALK-BACK,” THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY OF SPACE
  FOR INDIVIDUAL READERS TO SHARE SHORT COMMENTS, CONCERNS, AND CRITICISMS. AS YOU SURELY
  KNOW BETTER THAN I, THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN DO RATHER INTERESTING “INTERACTIVE”
  THINGS (WHICH IS PART OF WHAT I WAS CONTEMPLATING WHEN I MENTIONED FORMAT AT THE
  BEGINNING). ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND THAT EXCESSIVE BELLS, BEEPS AND WHISTLES MAY NOT SEEM
  ENTIRELY RESPECTABLE (THOUGH, FOR ALL I KNOW, MAYBE IJ IS ALREADY BRISTLING WITH LINKS TO
  THIS AND THAT, AND ABSOLUTELY ALIVE WITH INTERACTIVITY) A DISCRETE USE OF WHATEVER IS
  AVAILABLE OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED.

  2. The market … (to be crass!)

  a. Public sector/alternate service delivery agency managers/policy/program public
  servants, PIPEs (Public Interest Private Enterprise), PINAs (Public Interest Non-profit
  Agencies), academics, students?
  b. Local, provincial, national, international government?

  You want to know whether IJ should seek to attract either “Public sector …
  etc.” or “Local … etc.” readers.

  WHY ASK? WHY NOT PRODUCE THE BEST LITTLE JOURNAL POSSIBLE (AS YOU AND YOUR EDITORIAL
  BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT) AND SEE WHO LIKES IT? AGAIN, HAVE NO FEAR. IF IJ PROVIDES
  ATTRACTIVE, ACCESSIBLE AND EXCELLENT MATERIAL, ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE WILL SEEK IT OUT. THE
  PROBLEMS WITH STARTING OUT WITH AN OVERLY DEFINED TARGET AUDIENCE INCLUDE THE FACTS THAT:
  (A) YOU MAY MISREAD THAT TARGET AUDIENCE; (B) YOU MAY IGNORE A POTENTIAL AUDIENCE; (C) YOU
  MAY BECOME TOO TENTATIVE AND WORRIED THAT DEVIATION FROM PAST EXPECTATIONS MAY PREJUDICE
  YOUR DESIRED READERS AGAINST YOU. IN SHORT, IJ MAY BE INSUFFICIENTLY INNOVATIVE.

  INSTEAD, THEN, OF BEING RESTRICTIVE AND TRYING TO IDENTIFY A “NICHE”
  AUDIENCE, WHY NOT BE TRUE TO YOUR “VISION” AND IMAGINE AN INCLUSIVE AUDIENCE
  INCLUDING ALL THE CATEGORIES THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED IN Q. 2 (I.E. [A] AND [B]) AND GO
  AFTER THEM ALL, AND OTHERS INCLUDING, FOR INSTANCE, JOURNALISTS AND BROADCASTERS?

  OF COURSE, YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU
  WANTED THIS CONSULTATION PROCESS TO YIELD AN EDITORIAL BOARD THAT “CAN SECURE
  ARTICLES FROM THE MUNICIPAL, PROVINCIAL/STATE AND FEDERAL/NATIONAL LEVEL IN MANY
  COUNTRIES.” NONE THE LESS, I CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF INCLUSIVITY.

  Q. 3 What to cover?

  a. What should the IJ cover?
  – Only innovation, narrowly defined; public administration reform more generally; local,
  provincial/state, national, international?
  – Articles, speeches by professionals, academics, students, management consultants?
  – How should the agenda at the beginning be organized?
  – Subject areas: the learning organization, the innovation process, examples of
  innovation, government subject areas e.g. health, criminal justice, defence…
  – One way/interactive?
  b. Please provide suggestions for topics
  c. Suggestions for authors
  d. Suggestions for books/reports to review
  e. Suggestions for humour
  f. Suggestions for topics to debate and who could debate them.
  g. Who could review articles on what subjects?
  h. Which other sites (include addresses) should we link to?
  i. How can we contribute to knowledge of best practices without staff?
  How would we weed out enthusiasm from genuine improvement?
  j. Who is interested in innovation? names, addresses, phone and fax numbers and email
  addresses, please, if you have them.

  REGARDING SUBQUESTION (A), I WON’T REPEAT MYSELF. THE IDEAL ANSWER IS “ALL OF THE
  ABOVE.” MORE PRAGMATICALLY, THE CONTENT WILL DEPEND UPON THE CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE
  MAIN CRITERION SHOULD BE QUALITY. PUTTING IN A LOUSY ARTICLE JUST BECAUSE SOME AREA IS
  APPARENTLY BEING IGNORED IS NO WAY TO RUN A JOURNAL.

  AS FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREAS OR “DEPARTMENTS,” THE ONES YOU HAVE NOTED ARE
  FINE AND, AT LEAST IN THE EARLY STAGES SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED BEYOND WHAT IS PRACTICABLE.
  STILL, I’D SUGGEST A COUPLE OF THINGS: (I) TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION – WITH NO NECESSARY
  PROHIBITION ON CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ARTICULATE NEO-LUDDITES; (II) INNOVATION AND SOCIAL
  ISSUES – WHAT COMES TO MIND IS A RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  IS CONTEMPLATING PUTTING EVERY OHIP MEMBER’S COMPLETE MEDICAL RECORD INTO A CENTRAL DATA
  BASE WITH THE ANNOUNCED INTENT OF MAKING SURE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE DOCTOR DOESN’T
  PRESCRIBE A MEDICINE THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANOTHER MEDICINE THAT THE PATIENT HAS
  RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER DOCTOR; HOWEVER, (PARANOID?) SCEPTICS WONDER ABOUT ISSUES OF
  DOCTOR-PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY, PATIENT PRIVACY AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH DATA MIGHT
  BE USED IN THE EVENTUAL ASSIGNMENT OF PATIENTS TO PARTICULAR PHYSICIANS NOT OF THEIR OWN
  CHOOSING IN SOME FUTURE HEALTH CARE “REFORM.”

  REGARDING SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS, TOPICS, MATERIALS FOR REVIEW, HUMOUR, ETC., I’LL BEG
  OFF FOR THE MOMENT BUT I’LL BE HAPPY TO SEND SOME IDEAS IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.

  Finally, regarding items:

  (g) who reviews? –

  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT MAY BE IN ORDER IS A “WORKING” EDITORIAL BOARD IN
  WHICH SOME OF THE EDITORIAL DUTIES WOULD BE DELEGATED TO A FEW MEMBERS (PERHAPS A
  “FEATURES,” A “FORUM,” A “FEEDBACK,” AND A
  “REVIEW” EDITOR);

  and

  (i) sorting out enthusiasm from genuine improvement and the overall issue of the
  absence of staff –

  IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU CALL “MERE ENTHUSIASM” (WHICH I TAKE MAINLY TO BE
  GOOD IDEAS INCOMPETENTLY INTRODUCED OR DESCRIBED) AND “GENUINE IMPROVEMENT”
  (WHICH GETS US INTO THE RUNNING DEBATE WE HAVE BEEN HAVING FOR YEARS, I.E., DOESN’T WHAT
  COUNTS AS GENUINE IMPROVEMENT INEVITABLY REFLECT ONE’S POLITICAL VALUES).

  FOR EXAMPLE, THE FORMER ONTARIO MINISTER OF CULTURE AND CITIZENSHIP, MARILYN MUSHINSKI
  INTRODUCED AN “INNOVATIVE” BILL 109 WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO REFORM ONTARIO’S
  LIBRARIES AND MAKE LIBRARY FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION CONFORM TO THE IDEOLOGY OF THE
  “COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION” BY SLASHING FUNDING AND ELIMINATING CITIZEN
  PARTICIPATION ON LIBRARY BOARDS. AS A LIBRARY BOARD MEMBER AND A MEMBER OF THE ONTARIO
  LIBRARY TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION, I CONFESS THAT I WAS SURPRISED BUT NONE THE LESS HEARTENED
  WHEN THE NEW MINISTER, ISABEL BASSETT, WITHDREW THE BILL EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AT THIRD
  READING IN THE LEGISLATURE. THE TORONTO STAR, BY THE WAY, REPORTED THE POSSIBILITY THAT
  “THE BILL WAS KILLED TO MAKE ROOM ON THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR FOR OTHER BILLS MORE
  IMPORTANT TO THE TORY GOVERNMENT’S CORE AGENDA.” MAYBE SO. STILL, IN THIS CASE, WHAT
  SOME WOULD CALL A “GENUINE IMPROVEMENT” WAS, FOR OTHERS A DISASTER IN THE
  MAKING, WHILE I AM PLEASED THAT WHATEVER THE MOTIVE, BILL 109 HAS AT LEAST TEMPORARILY
  BEEN SET ASIDE.

  NOW, I DON’T EXPECT NOR WOULD I RECOMMEND THAT IJ UNDERTAKE THE HAZARDOUS AND QUITE
  POSSIBLY HOPELESS TASK OF DEFINING ITS POLITICAL VALUES WITH PRECISION. NOR WOULD I URGE
  THAT ANY SUCH CATALOGUE OF CONCERNS BE SET OUT IN PRINT. FEW INDIVIDUALS SUCCEED IN
  CREATING AN UNAMBIGUOUS INVENTORY OF POLITICAL BELIEFS AND FEWER GROUPS, APART FROM
  SHORT-LIVED REVOLUTIONARY CADRES OR TRADITIONALIST DEFENDERS OF TIMELESS DOGMAS,
  ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING MORE PRECISE THAN A NECESSARILY ELASTIC “MISSION STATEMENT.”
  STILL, SOME SMALL DELIBERATION ON THIS MATTER SEEMS INEVITABLE SOMETIME.

  THE PHRASE “GENUINE IMPROVEMENT” DOES, AFTER ALL, BEG THE QUESTION: “IN
  WHOSE INTEREST?” INCREASES IN EFFICIENCY, FOR EXAMPLE, OFTEN PRODUCE A DECLINE IN
  EQUITY. POLICY INNOVATIONS DESIGNED TO ASSIST BUSINESS MAY UNDERMINE LABOUR. ENVIRONMENTAL
  PROTECTION MAY BE INTERPRETED AS UNNECESSARILY HAMPERING ENTERPRISE. ONE INTEREST’S
  PLEASURE IS ANOTHER’S PAIN, AND SO ON. FOR THE TIME BEING, THOUGH, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE
  AND, INDEED, PREFERABLE TO SET OUT WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE MORE OR LESS APOLITICAL
  CRITERION OF “EXCELLENCE.” IT IS POSSIBLE, FOR INSTANCE, TO COME TO A CONSENSUS
  ON STANDARDS OF THEORETICAL SOPHISTICATION, EMPIRICAL VALIDITY AND RHETORICAL SKILL
  IRRESPECTIVE OF THE IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT NORMATIVE CONTENT OF A CONTRIBUTION. FOR THE TIME
  BEING, THEREFORE, IT MIGHT BE BEST TO ALLOW A MEASURE OF EDITORIAL FLUIDITY.

  Updated
  
  November 02, 1998 Revised Nov 2009
  
  

response

Ms Glor,

First I want to thank you for providing the information about your
journal. Too often I get “junk mail” about advertising laden newsletters that
have little real content – this was a refreshing look at a working alternative.

In the spirit of your request, I would like to offer my response to
your questionnaire. I am a technology and management consultant and my practice is
primarily in regional governments throughout the Western US and Latin America.

Q. 1- How to make the IJ the best little journal on public sector
innovation that it can be?

Continue to build your community and allow the community interest to
drive subjects and discussion. Like innovation itself, there is nothing you can do to
completely control the process – guidance, encouragement, and recognition for
contributions is the simple answer. Beyond that, being open to the odd spark that
seems to have no place is probably the most
challenging part of editing this journal.

Q.2 – Who are the readers we are trying to attract?

Some of your contributors have expressed the thought that perhaps
this journal needed to reflect a limited geographic area. Outside of the issues of
language, I must disagree. I am just as interested in innovations that work in Borneo as I
am in Toronto or New York. While it is true that customs, technology acceptance, and
governmental types are very wide in the world at large – the issues of providing public
services effectively are basically the same.

Beyond this consideration, I think the only issue is that the
journal should not become a forum for vendors to promote their wares. Innovation, like
Knowledge Management is becoming yet another buzz word that is spawning
“refocused” products that have little or nothing to do with the process of
innovation.

a. Public sector/alternate service delivery agency
managers/policy/program public
servants, PIPEs (Public Interest Private Enterprise), PINAs (Public Interest Non-profit
Agencies), academics, students?

Yes.

a. Local, provincial, national, international government?

Yes

Q. 3 –

a. What should the IJ cover? Only innovation, narrowly
defined; public administration reform more generally; local, provincial/state, national,
international?

While this is certainly the primary focus, it should be recognized
that innovation in many large organizations is applicable to government organizations as
well. As one example, organizational case studies that came from the American Association
of Retired People (AARP) come to mind. In addition, there are strong lessons from
commercial experiments with technical innovations that must be recognized as road signs
for government evaluation.

-Articles, speeches by professionals, academics, students,
management
consultants?

In many cases there are limitations, either real or cultural, that
prohibit governmental insiders from providing insight into the problems they have faced in
trying to bring innovation into their service. Professionals can provide views and
experience that would simply not surface without them.

-How should the agenda at the beginning be organized?

I think it has to grow organically from the interests of the
community. Articles, comments on those articles, requests for ideas can themselves provide
enough momentum if the community becomes involved.

-Subject areas: the learning organization, the innovation process,
examples of
innovation, government subject areas e.g. health, criminal justice, defence…

All of these subjects as well as opportunities to link the strategic
initiatives that bring innovative forces to the table are vital.

-One way/interactive?

No question – interactive as much as possible, understanding that
some editorial process must continue.

b. Please provide suggestions for topics

In addition to the topics suggested elsewhere – organizational and
technical architecture and strategic processes that have yielded
results

c. Suggestions for authors

d. Suggestions for books/reports to review

e. Suggestions for humour

You seem to have a good handle on this already! Keep it – we
need it.

f. Suggestions for topics to debate and who could debate them.

g. Who could review articles on what subjects?

h. Which other sites (include addresses) should we link to?

http://www.ewita.com/

i. How can we contribute to knowledge of best practices
without staff?

Of course, having staff would make it easier – the best
opportunities are probably from conferences where you can promote the organization and
gain more recognition of the goals and hopefully more community and more input.

j. How would we weed out enthusiasm from genuine improvement?

Tough issue – no question. Perhaps some points in direction need to
be reviewed by a recognized board. The problem I see with anything approaching this is
everything can only be controlled out of hindsight.

k. Who is interested in innovation? names, addresses, phone
and fax numbers and email addresses, please, if you have them.

Q.4 – How do we deal with barriers: not currently peer reviewed, no
intellectual property rights, no permanent record, uncertain how many years it will last.

Unless you want this to become the Nobel prize system for
government, I think you have to let the community direction on these issues evolve. IP
rights have and will stymie many opportunities for innovation in technology, no question.
But in the larger arena of promoting and sharing best practices and innovation in
government organizations as a whole, if people will just open up and tell their stories,
much of the rest will build itself.

Q.5 – What would constitute success?

Recognition among a dedicated community that government can learn
and evolve as a whole, not just as isolated entities.

Regards,

MIKE…
Make your Information your KnowlEDGE
Michael L. Dunham
2333 La Lima Way
Sacramento, CA 95833
Phone: 916-641-1204
Pager: 888-469-1963
email: michaeldunham@earthlink.net
homepage: http://home.earthlink.net/~michaeldunham/

Updated

May 29, 2001 Revised Nov 4 2009

Revised November 2009