If Orville and Wilbur Wright, a.k.a, the Wright brothers, had a board of directors at their Dayton bicycle shop that was evaluating their new transportation concept, we could expect one or all of the following answers: “It’s not part of our current core competencies.” “It’s not aligned with our corporate strategic plan to expand into the tricycle market”. “We don’t even have the funds available to explore this idea due to recent input cost increases in bicycle seats.”
Again, in a discussion on innovative ways to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, Professor Abraham Anang of the Noguchi Memorial Institute of Medical Research stated that “some few weeks or months back, if you made a suggestion that one ventilator will be used for two people, even just two at the same time, medical professionals will tell you that you are mad, there is something wrong with you, but now we find a way of using one ventilator for four people without cross-infection, concluding that necessity is the mother of invention”.
So, although many embrace the idea that innovation can contribute to improving the quality of public services, the extra mile to actually create new ideas and change in order to actualize the progress we all desire to see, painfully remains a big farce.
Concept of innovation
Until recently, I perceived innovation only as something drastic, out of the blue, which no man has ever done, or attempted to do on the planet.
Not to say that radical innovation is undesirable, but ignoring, the little, step-by-step, daily improvements, known as “kaizen”, that can collectively bring about a significant change and progress, for some wild radical ideas which may not even be realized, is what is worrying.
One perspective “conceives innovation as an outcome and thus organisations would innovate under certain contextual, structural and process conditions”. Another perceives “innovation as a process that emerges, develops and becomes a part of the routine activities of an organisation”.
The most basic forms are product, service, technological as well as process innovations. Again, innovation can be generated by an organization or adopted from others.
Public sector organisations and innovation
There is a general perception and practically true to some extent, that the public sector is slow-moving, conservative, and too bureaucratic.
“Research also shows that superior market performers are essentially companies that are able to innovate and constantly transform their value proposition”.
Juxtaposing the phenomenal speed, flexibility, and top-notch customer service, which are mostly outcomes of innovation, identical in most private sector institutions, the public sector in Ghana woefully lags behind on these dimensions and many more.
Meanwhile, the much-needed effectiveness, efficiency, and solutions to societal problems such as addressing unemployment, improving revenue mobilization, improvement in urban transportation management, health and education could all be tackled through innovation.
Barriers to innovation
So why is innovation in Ghana’s public sector so low if not non-existent in some cases, and why are some organisations more innovative than others?
Again, what organizational structures and management processes facilitate or inhibit innovation in public sector organisations.
First, how can one act outside the box, in the spirit of being innovative, and still avoid the risk of running into the legal conundrum of, “it is not in your mandate and jurisdiction to do this”, for which some public officials have found themselves in prison.
Again, what level of failure in attempting to be innovative are we as a people prepared to tolerate without crucifying innovators. Otherwise, the “do not fear to fail” preaching will continue to be a motivational talk which in practice will never imbibe faith for action.
My meagre 13 years in public service might not be enough to make this generalization that the public sector generally does not reward innovation, but permit me. This is because one could easily find contemporaries in the private sector who are constantly recognized and rewarded for being innovative. Such level of motivation would always urge employees to even desire to exceed the expectations of top management.
Also, excessive bureaucracy is one common feature in public sector organisations that inhibit innovation. Sometimes the sheer number of consultations and clearance that one has to go through in order to initiate what I call, basic operational level changes and new ideas, are enough discouragement to even think of trying to do something outside the box.
I also find the lack of target setting in most public sector organisations. Unlike in the private sector, performance targets drive innovation and growth in the private sector. Even where there may be targets in the former, applying appropriate sanctions for non-achievement falls short.
It is also not difficult to find budget allocations for training and development aimed at making employees skilful and innovative in almost all public sector organisations.
But the question is how many of those training and learning programmes are executed at the end of the year, and what is the quality of the learning, such that employees can improve on their performance by creating new ideas? The inadequate or in some cases, utmost lack of structures or mechanisms for the enhancement of organisational learning, therefore, keep employees going in circles.
Lastly, resources will always be scarce since human wants are insatiable, “ceteris paribus”.
But for the fact that private sector organisations which face similar resource constraints are able to equip their employees to constantly venture unchartered territories, and excelling, means it is not an excuse why public sector organisations cannot do same.
“Human beings are not robots”. “And you cannot continue to do things the same way and expect different results,” says Prof. Augustine Ocloo.
The writer, Michael Bremfi is a Commercial Manager, Centre for Plant Medicine Research
e-mail: mikaelbremfi@yahoo.com