VIP Call Girls Service Bikaner Aishwarya 8250192130 Independent Escort Servic...
Licence to innovate: How government can reward risk
1. LICENCE TO
INNOVATE
How government can
reward risk
24WP
WP24LICENCETOINNOVATE:HOWGOVERNMENTCANREWARDRISK
ISBN: 978-1-927065-16-7
WORKING PAPER
FEBRUARY 2016
24
4. 2 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS & PROSPERITY
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT1 Government innovation defined 12
EXHIBIT2 Three types of barriers to government innovation 12
EXHIBIT3 Five reasons to enhance government innovation 13
EXHIBIT4 Three costs of government innovation 14
EXHIBIT5 Your Ontario Public Service 19
EXHIBIT6 Government’s recruitment message looks like government 20
EXHIBIT7 Public policy is open for discussion 21
EXHIBIT8 An unbalanced relationship 22
EXHIBIT9 Four criteria to evaluate innovation 27
5. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 3
CONTENTS
Foreword & Acknowledgements 4
Executive Summary 6
10 CHAPTER 1: GOVERNMENTNEEDS A LICENCE TO INNOVATE
Defining ‘innovation’ is innovative 11
What is government innovation? 12
Barriers to government innovation 12
Benefits of government innovation 13
Government innovation comes at a cost 14
16 CHAPTER 2: THE STATUS OF GOVERNMENTINNOVATION
Ontario needs to boost innovation in policy design 17
Ontario needs to improve innovation in the policy process 19
Ontario needs to support innovation in policy implementation 21
24 CHAPTER 3: THE ROLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Measuring innovation 25
Monitoring government innovation 26
Criteria to evaluate innovation 27
28 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS
End Notes 34
Previous Publications 36
6. 4 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS & PROSPERITY
Jamison Steeve
Executive Director
Institute for
Competitiveness & Prosperity
ON behalf of Ontario’s Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity, I am pleased
to present our 24th Working Paper, Licence to innovate: How government can
reward risk.
There is a refrain one often hears in public policy circles: “government should
think and act more like business.” Usually, this is applied in areas such as
oversight, results orientation, and a focus on the bottom line. But what if that
premise was applied to innovation – the development of improved products,
processes, and services?
Take a favourite paragon of corporate creativity – Apple. This fast moving
company recently reported the largest single quarter earnings in the history of
the world. They did it on a foundation of innovation. They put the user at the
centre of their thinking. Moreover, innovation is at the heart of how Apple
operates: they prototype, fail quickly, and try again.
What if the government of Ontario tried to innovate like a business? What if
President Roosevelt’s words above were part of the ethos driving government
and those who hold government to account?
This Working Paper is our attempt to highlight some government efforts to
innovate in policy design, processes, and implementation. Calling for even
greater progress, we offer eight concrete suggestions to spur further innovation.
We begin by offering our own definition of government innovation, described
as improvements to policy design (products), the policy process (processes),
and policy implementation (service delivery) to achieve a stated goal, all built
on a culture of collaboration that focuses on end users. Importantly, we believe
innovation should be associated with a clearly articulated goal. Success can be
achieved even in moments when innovation is not fully realized. Failure exists
only when we do not learn from it, when we do not use that knowledge in the
next attempt.
What if Steve Jobs had
been Premier?
FOREWORD & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
7. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 5
In this Working Paper, we hope to provide some suggestions on how government
can pursue innovation. This is not because we believe in innovation in and of
itself, but because some of the problems we face as a province require new
approaches, new solutions, and new voices. With a licence to innovate, an ability
to create new policies, and a more mature accountability structure, we can
enhance our ability to collectively solve problems.
Our recommendations consider all aspects of policy – from design to development
to implementation – with a belief that there is a huge upside to innovating.
Certainly there are risks and potential costs. But the price we pay as a province by
failing to try outweighs the costs of trying and failing.
As always, but especially for this Working Paper, we are grateful for the funding
support from the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and
Infrastructure. We would also like to thank those at the Cabinet Office, and
various other ministries, for the information, background, and freedom they
provided us to write this Working Paper. Finally, we want to thank the many
individuals who read this Working Paper and offered invaluable feedback. We
look forward to sharing and discussing our work and findings with all Ontarians.
All comments and suggestions are welcome.
“It is common sense to take a method
and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly
and try something else. But above all,
try something.”
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
8. 6 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LICENCE TO
INNOVATE:
HOW GOVERNMENT
CAN REWARD RISK
P
eoples’ ability to access information
anytime, anyplace, has altered their
expectations from government. If you can
shop online from the comfort of home,
why should you be content to wait in line at a
government office during standard business hours
to access public services?
9. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 7
THESE changes are taking place in a context of fiscal austerity, shifting
demographics, and “wicked” policy challenges. As a result, government must
tighten its purse strings and think of alternative approaches. In other words,
government needs to enhance innovation. This means creating space for
policymakers, stakeholders, and delivery agencies to improve policy design,
the policy process, and policy implementation.
Yet there is an aversion toward innovation within government. Less than half
of policy professionals in Ontario’s Public Service feel innovation is valued in
their work unit. This is likely due to the costs of innovation, namely an appetite
for risk, strong leadership, and dedicated resources.
Failure to innovate carries its own costs. It means that government may
not improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public services. In addition,
the government may weaken its human capital, disengage the public, and
be viewed as an illegitimate institution. Therefore, government needs a
licence to innovate.
In this Working Paper, the Institute reviews the government of Ontario’s work
to enhance innovation in policy design, the policy process, and policy imple-
mentation. These efforts are compared to initiatives adopted in public and
private sectors at home and abroad.
Overall, Ontario has taken steps to enhance innovation. Some of these
initiatives include applying behavioural insights, modifying engagement
with stakeholders, and streamlining the delivery of public services. Yet more
can be done. Revising funding frameworks, advancing human resource
management, and revitalizing relationships with service providers can all
boost government innovation.
Enhancing innovation in government also requires advancing accountability.
Doing so ensures responsible use of public resources, incentivizes innova-
tion, and fosters a culture that welcomes moderate risk. Ontario can advance
accountability in government innovation by capitalizing on existing tools at
the individual and organizational levels. The Institute also suggests evaluating
government innovation according to four metrics: context investigation, input
itemization, output identification, and outcome inspection.
Less than half of
policy professionals in
Ontario’s Public Service
feel innovation is valued
in their work unit.
10. 8 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
Integrate innovation into government activity to
counter the risk-averse culture
Government operates in a risk-averse environment. To counter this,
Ontario should expand the Program Review, Renewal, and Transformation
process to embrace innovation. Doing so signals that innovation is both
desirable and acceptable. It also creates a need for senior leaders to
champion innovation.
Revise funding frameworks to boost policy design
Funding frameworks determine how policies are designed. The
government of Ontario currently allocates funds along ministerial lines
and this impedes resource sharing. Adopting a mission-driven approach
would foster collaboration and thereby enhance innovation. Ontario
should also expand and centralize innovation funds to experiment with
alternative policy designs.
Apply behavioural insights to improve
policy design
Traditional policies are based on assumptions about human behaviour,
which may not reflect reality. Adopting behavioural insights into policy
design provides opportunities to yield more effective outcomes. Ontario
should expand the number and scope of policy experiments to test
behavioural models and be more upfront about these activities. This
can enhance innovation, counter a risk-averse culture, and advance
accountability. The Institute also recommends policymakers reflect on
how users access public services by further incorporating design thinking
into their work.
Advance human resource management to
strengthen the policy process
There is a need to improve the bureaucracy’s capacity and willingness to
innovate. Revising recruitment techniques and training programs can build
internal capacity for innovation. Expanding performance development
plans and performance evaluations can incentivize workers as well as
foster a culture that is open to change. Employees should further be
provided with greater autonomy in the design and presentation of internal
communications.
Based on comparative case studies, the Institute
outlines eight recommendations to enhance innovation
in the government of Ontario.
11. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 9
Modify the quality and scope of engagement to
support the policy process
Ontario needs to review how it engages with the broader public.
Institutionalizing open data policies can enhance consistency,
transparency, and accountability. While being sensitive to privacy
concerns, government should also provide individuals with greater
access to their personal records.
Revitalize relations between government and
delivery agencies to upgrade policy implementation
Joining public interest values with private sector techniques in service
delivery has backfired. Broadening the mandate of delivery agencies and
assessing their propensity to try new things can incentivize innovation.
Moreover, allowing service providers to take chances and adopt a
moderate level of risk demonstrates trust and indicates that government
does not always have ready-made solutions.
Streamline services to refine policy implementation
Integrated service delivery requires bigger policy silos. Ontario has
already taken action to streamline service delivery, but there is more to be
done. Government should adopt a mission-driven approach and organize
federal, provincial, and local public services across policy objectives.
Sharing resources and integrating public services can create ripe
opportunities for innovation.
Monitor government innovation to advance
accountability
Government needs to be open and honest about how and why it is
innovating. The government of Ontario should broaden its existing
tools to evaluate workers’ innovation as well as report on organizational
innovation. Context investigation, input itemization, output identification,
and outcome inspection are some metrics to assess innovation. The
Institute is ready to report on innovation in the Ontario government, and
calls on third party bodies of the legislature (like the Auditor General) to
do the same. On the political side, opposition parties should dedicate one
session of Question Period per year to assess government innovation.
12. 10 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
CHAPTER 1
I
nnovation is often touted without a common
definition or sufficient explanation. Focusing
on government innovation, the Institute
discusses improvements to policy design,
the policy process, and policy implementation.
Government innovation brings many benefits but
also requires moderate risk, strong leadership, and
dedicated resources. However, organizational and
cultural barriers, as well as Ontario’s accountability
framework, can impede innovation. Given these
opportunities and obstacles, Ontario’s policymakers
need a licence to innovate.
GOVERNMENT
NEEDS A LICENCE
TO INNOVATE
13. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 11
Defining ‘innovation’ is innovative
There is a wide range of literature that
discusses the causes and consequences of
innovation. Unsurprisingly, definitions of
innovation also vary, and this is largely
the result of the people defining it, the
organizations utilizing it, and the context in
which it is introduced.
The OECD defines innovation as the imple-
mentation of a new or significantly improved
product or process, marketing technique, or
organizational method in business practices,
workplace organization, or external relations.3
This definition is all-encompassing and, argu-
ably, overly broad, especially in the context of
government innovation.
GOVERNMENTinnovation is often viewed as
a paradox because the nature and work of
the public sector are starkly different from
that of the private sector. Most noticeably, the
absence of a profit motive renders innovation
irrelevant and hence unnecessary. The private
sector relies on innovation to generate profit in
order to continue their operations. Conversely,
the public sector does not face the same
threats and therefore lacks the same motiva-
tion to innovate.1
Furthermore, government operates within
a risk-averse culture, which is largely reflec-
tive of institutional frameworks. Concepts
of responsible government and ministe-
rial accountability – core fundamentals of
Canada’s democracy – have created extensive
vertical hierarchies purposefully designed to
maintain the status quo.
Combined with an active media and numerous
oversight bodies who are on constant lookout
for government failure, it is not surprising that
government innovation is a rarity. In fact, only
49 percent of policy professionals in Ontario’s
Public Service felt innovation was valued in
their work unit, according to a 2014 survey.2
Yet government innovation is imperative to
deliver the public goods required to meet
ever-growing public demands. Peoples’ ability
to easily and instantly access information has
altered their expectations and sparked a desire
to be involved in public policy. At the same
time, fiscal austerity, changing demograph-
ics, and “wicked” policy challenges create a
need to pursue alternative policy approaches.
Therefore, government needs to create space
for policymakers, stakeholders, and delivery
agencies to innovate.
Others have argued that innovation must
lead to an outcome; in some cases, innovation
must be implemented, successful, or accrue a
public benefit.4
There has also been a focus on
how change impacts an organization’s services
and users.5
Roger Martin, a leading strategy advisor
and Chair of the former Task Force of
Competitiveness, Productivity, and Economic
Progress, has a different take. According to his
view, innovation yields a new product or
process that adds value, thereby improving
economic, health, or social well-being.
Innovations are built from inventions but often
require more than just technical expertise –
Government needs to create space for
policymakers, stakeholders, and delivery
agencies to innovate.
14. 12 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
a culture of collaboration and a focus on end users fosters new
ideas.6
This definition not only explains what innovation is,
but also describes the causes and consequences of innovation.
Organizations can use this framework to embed innovation
into their overarching objectives.
What is government innovation?
Building off of these definitions, the Institute defines govern-
ment innovation as improvements to policy design (products),
the policy process (processes), and policy implementation
(service delivery) to achieve a stated goal, all built on a culture
of collaboration that focuses on end users (Exhibit 1).
This definition captures three responsibilities of the govern-
ment that are not mutually exclusive. Policy design requires
consulting with parties and anticipating operational consider-
ations, including likely attempts at regulation. Likewise, the
policy process requires government to engage with internal
and external stakeholders when designing and implementing
policy. At the same time, policy implementation largely
depends on policy design and the existing policy process.
Notably, the Institute’s definition does not consider whether or
not an innovation was realized. This is because “failed”
innovations can provide insight on best practices and fuel
future “successful” innovations.7
The Institute does, however,
demand that innovation be associated with a stated goal.
Innovation is not an end in itself – the overarching objective is
to yield actionable options that improve public services. This,
in turn, necessitates a culture shift within the government and
a focus on users of public services. It also requires strong
leadership, the sharing of resources and ideas, as well as
transparency and an openness to the possibility of failure.
Barriers to government innovation
Organizational realities, cultural practices, and the account-
ability framework impede innovation (Exhibit 2). These barriers
inhibit information sharing, obscure emergent practices,
discourage holistic thinking, and prevent engagement. The
exact opposite needs to happen to enhance innovation.
Organizational barriers include the sheer size of public
institutions, diffuse or absent leadership, disintegrated IT
systems and operating budgets, and onerous layers of
approvals.8
For example, operating budgets that rely on
strict rules discourage collaboration within and across the
government, constructing and reinforcing ministerial silos.
Government also faces cultural barriers to innovation. An
overemphasis on targets, managerial resistance, lack of
incentives to innovate, and unbalanced stakeholder relations
all stifle innovation. They signal to public servants that new
ways of thinking and doing are unacceptable.9
The accountability framework within which government
operates can further bar innovation. Relatively short-term
election cycles make large scale spending on RD politically
risky. As a result, government is encouraged to pursue short-
term projects that produce visible outcomes. In addition, the
concept and articulation of accountability and transparency
• Large institutions
• Decentralized
IT systems
• Disintegrated
budgets
• Onerous approvals
Organizational
realities
• Target emphasis
• Managerial
resistance
• Lack of incentives
• Unbalanced
stakeholder
relations
Cultural
practices
• Short election
cycles
• Accountability
• Transparency
EXHIBIT 2 Three types of barriers to government innovation
Accountability
framework
Culture of
collaboration
Policy
design
Focus
on users
Government
innovation
Policy
implementation
Policy
process
EXHIBIT 1 Government innovation defined
15. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 13
can negatively impact the appetite for
innovation by heightening fears of failure.
This perpetuates a risk-averse culture.
Benefits of government
innovation
There are five reasons why government
should enhance innovation (Exhibit 3). First,
innovation can improve the effectiveness of
public policy, or the extent to which public
services achieve their intended objectives.10
“Wicked” problems pose a particular challenge
and suggest that existing approaches may no
longer be relevant or appropriate.11
Second, improvements to public policy can
save resources.12
Enhancing public sector
innovation can increase efficiency, allowing
government to employ fewer resources to
achieve a given objective.
Third, young and culturally diverse employees
seeking meaning and variety in their
professional careers are slowly populating
government offices.13
These employees are
unlikely to be satisfied with a job that operates
in a command-and-control style with minimal
collaboration, and does not invite new ways of
thinking.14
Encouraging innovation can help
attract, inspire, and retain talent.15
Fourth, introducing new ideas adopted
outside of traditional policy circles can
increase civic engagement.16
Consulting with
users of public services not only reveals
different points of view, but further signals
that public opinions are needed and valued.17
This is good for democracy, which is predi-
cated on an informed population that
participates in decision-making processes.
Finally, engaging with the public can
influence how they view the work and role of
government. When public services are
effective and efficient, and users of these
services have the opportunity to provide input
into the policy process, there will likely be
greater buy-in.18
This, in turn, can promote the
legitimacy of government, or the public’s
confidence that government will reflect their
collective views.
EFFICIENT USE
OF RESOURCES
EFFECTIVE
POLICY
GOVERNMENT
LEGITIMACY
CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT
HUMAN RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
PERMISSION
GRANTED
EXHIBIT 3 Five reasons to enhance government innovation
16. 14 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
for civil servants who are already balancing
different projects and priorities. Therefore,
recruiting and developing leaders who believe
in government innovation and are able to
spearhead change is crucial within the public
sector.
Adequate financing and human resources
are required to pursue innovative projects.
Securing these presents a third cost of gov-
ernment innovation. In a context of fiscal
austerity, investing financial and human
resources in innovation activities can be
difficult to justify. A holistic consideration of
potential long-term benefits as well as strong
senior leadership can help overcome this
barrier.
Government innovation means improving
policy design, the policy process, and policy
implementation. Innovation is not an end
goal, but rather a means to an end. This is
because innovation can improve the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of public services,
while also serve as a human resource strat-
egy, increase democratic engagement, and
promote legitimacy. But innovation also
requires moderate risk, strong leadership,
and dedicated resources. In other words,
government needs a licence to innovate.
Government innovation comes
at a cost
Enhancing government innovation is not
without costs (Exhibit 4). Perhaps the greatest
cost for pursuing innovation is the associated
risk. Will a new initiative turn out the way we
expect it to? What happens if things do not go
according to plan? Who will be held accountable
if we fail? These questions show that govern-
ment is accountable to the public, which is
a sign of a healthy democracy. But they also
discourage new initiatives and encourage a
risk-averse culture.
Yet, maintaining accountability does not have
to be at the expense of innovation. To some
degree, government must change its toler-
ance for change by being transparent about
the nature of risks, adopting evidence-based
experiments, and scaling up successful trials.
Similarly, the public’s acceptance of risk can
also change with greater civic engagement and
a strong communications strategy that out-
lines the opportunities and risks of innovation.
This leads to a second cost associated
with government innovation: leadership.
Innovation requires leaders to consistently and
effectively champion an innovation-driven
agenda. This takes time and energy, especially
RESOURCES
RISKR
$
L LEADERSHIP
EXHIBIT 4 Three costs of government innovation
17. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 15
Innovation can
improve the
effectiveness and
efficiency of public
services, advance
human resources
management,
increase democratic
engagement, and
promote legitimacy.
18. 16 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
THE STATUS OF
GOVERNMENT
INNOVATION
T
he government of Ontario has taken steps
to enhance innovation in policy design, the
policy process, and policy implementation.
Some of these initiatives include adopting
behavioural insights, increasing engagement
with stakeholders, and streamlining services. Yet
more can be done. Revising funding frameworks,
advancing human resource management, and
revitalizing service provider relationships
can further enhance government innovation.
In many cases, Ontario can look to the success
of governments across Canada and in
jurisdictions abroad.
CHAPTER 2
19. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 17
ONTARIO has, or is currently undertaking, initiatives to improve
policy design, the policy process, and policy implementa-
tion. But what do these activities look like, and how do they
compare to those adopted abroad?
Ontario needs to boost innovation in
policy design
Enhancing innovation in policy design means improving
government outputs. Given that these are the primary chan-
nels of government operations, innovation in these areas is
both visible and impactful.
Revising funding frameworks
Most public policy work is driven by budgets and rules so
that public resources are used efficiently and responsibly.19
Unfortunately, doing policy work in this way creates a rigid
framework that fuels waste and dysfunction and stifles
resource sharing, thereby limiting innovation.20
Funding frameworks should be driven by policy objectives and
outcomes, not budget lines. Mission-driven budgeting places
policy objectives ahead of stringent rules, time-consuming
procedures, and boxed spending categories.21
It also simplifies
the budget process, incentivizes senior managers to save
money, and provides policymakers with the autonomy and
flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. Freed up
resources can then be used to test new ideas.22
(See Reading
between the budget lines.)
Unfortunately alternative funding frameworks are often
dismissed because dollars spent today are valued at the same
rate as future dollars. Modifying funding frameworks can and
should be seen as a long-term investment.
Mission-driven budgeting can further encourage design think-
ing or constructing programs and services from the perspective
of the user. Operating in a world mired by stringent guidelines
and approval processes can cause policymakers to forget what
it is like to interact with public services and programs, like
checking into a hospital, accessing training programs, or start-
ing a business.23
Design thinking involves prototyping policy
options to test which iterations lead to success and which ones
CASE STUDY:
Reading between the budget lines
The government of Ontario can learn from the United Kingdom’s
(UK) success in adopting a mission-driven approach to public
budgeting. By pooling community budgets together in a series of
pilot initiatives, local UK governments personalize and co-produce
public services to better address the issues experienced by
service users. Governments can access the pool of funds through
a proposal that reflects community needs and demonstrates
buy-in and integration from delivery partners.24
Similarly, Ontario’s
public resources can be re-allocated across line items to achieve
public policy goals.25
This can reduce waste and enable the public
sector to be more responsive to change. It also signals that
experimentation is accepted.
The UK has also adopted an alternative financing approach:
challenge funding in which the public competes to determine
where public funds should be allocated.26
This fosters
collaboration and allows private and public actors to decide how
a government objective should be achieved.27
For example, about
75 percent of challenge funds have partnership requirements.
This capitalizes on government’s coercive powers to incite
co-action. Although challenge funding typically focuses
on effectiveness and efficiency, it also allows for greater
engagement and innovation throughout the policy process.28
The
Ontario government should consider implementing challenge
funding to reap the benefits of cooperation and public input.
Enhancing innovation in policy
design means improving
government outputs.
20. 18 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
CASE STUDY:
Behave yourself!
Housed in Ontario’s Treasury Board
Secretariat, the Behavioural Insights
Unit applies behavioural economics to
policy design. Staff conduct randomized
controlled trials to test alternative
policy designs by changing the context
in which individuals make decisions. This
takes a new approach on government’s
coercive powers by focusing less on
rules and more on three psychologically
important dimensions: information,
social relations, and time.
An experiment with the Gift of Life
Consent Form demonstrates how
behavioural insights can lead to
innovative policy outputs. Research
suggests that the majority of Ontarians
are willing to register as organ and
tissue donors, yet only 27 percent
have actually registered. This suggests
that individuals are not acting on
their preferences. In response, the
Behavioural Insights Unit piloted a
revised Gift of Life Consent Form.31
By scaling down the physical length of
the form and removing unnecessary
information, the ServiceOntario centre
where the pilot took place experienced a
43 percent increase in organ and tissue
donor registrations over an eight-week
period. This also saved 2.5 minutes per
person completing the form and cost
only $2,700 to implement.32
Surprisingly, not a word of this success
was spoken outside of government
circles, even after the experiment took
place. But communicating both within
and outside of the public service that
the government is spearheading policy
experiments is important – it shows that
the public service has an appetite to
innovate and is responsive to change. It
can also counter the risk-averse culture
within government and fuel future
innovation.
The government of Canada is also
applying behavioural insights but letting
people know about it. Canadians are
among the world’s largest consumers
of loyalty points. In fact, 90 percent
of Canadians belong to at least one
loyalty points program, and the average
household collects points from eight
different programs.33
The Public Health
Agency of Canada is leveraging loyalty
points programs to encourage healthy
living and prevent chronic disease.
Designed in collaboration with
multiple sectors, Carrot Rewards is an
interactive app to produce better health
outcomes for Canadians. The app is free
and uses a self-assessed level of health
to incentivize behavioural change. Users
receive loyalty rewards points if they
adopt healthier and more responsible
lifestyles such as exercising, consuming
a nutritious diet, and quitting smoking.
Points can be streamlined with existing
loyalty points programs offered by
Canadian Tire, President’s Choice,
Shoppers Drug Mart, and Aeroplan,
among others. Currently being
implemented in British Columbia, the
government estimates that 62 percent
of Carrot Rewards app users increased
their physical activity.34
Incorporating
technology and behavioural insights,
along with publicly communicating
results, can generate alternative policy
designs that better achieve a stated
objective.
do not. Policymakers can learn from failures to
generate future successes and counter a risk-
averse culture.
Applying behavioural insights
Traditional policies are based on assumptions
about how, when, and why people will behave.
These assumptions suggest that individuals
are always rational decision-makers who have
complete information and react to incentives
and constraints.29
But people do not always
have the time, memory, awareness, ability, or
motivation to engage in a complex cost-ben-
efit analysis. Instead, individuals often make
mental shortcuts that are largely dependent
on contextual information.30
Behavioural economics blends traditional
theories with psychological insights to better
understand how people make decisions. It is
this type of thinking that can lead to innova-
tion in policy design. (See Behave yourself!)
21. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 19
Ontario needs to improve innovation in the policy process
Enhancing innovation in the policy process means improving internal and
external engagement. Internal stakeholders include the bureaucracy as well
as elected officials and their staff. External stakeholders are experts, delivery
agencies, and the broader public.
Advancing human resource management
About 63,000 people work in Ontario’s Public Service (Exhibit 5).35
Public
servants are a critical resource. If they do not possess the skills, ability,
knowledge, or experience to innovate, then it is unlikely that government
as a whole will be innovative.36
(See Making the private public and the public
private.)
Recruitment strategies, along with training programs, can enhance innovation.
In addition, managers must be able to identify innovators and encourage
innovation. Building interdisciplinary research teams to promote collaboration
and recognizing innovative activities can achieve these goals.37
To some extent,
this also involves addressing the public sector wage gap. In Working Paper 19,
the Institute found that managerial occupations in the Ontario Public Service
earn low or negative wage premiums, while clerical and administrative occupa-
tions earn a premium of 10 percent compared to their private sector
counterparts. This can create perverse incentives and make it more difficult to
attract and retain managerial talent.38
If public servants do
not possess the skills,
ability, knowledge, or
experience to innovate,
then it is unlikely that
government as a whole
will be innovative.
EXHIBIT 5 Your Ontario Public Service
Source: Institute for Competitiveness Prosperity analysis based on data from the Ontario Government, Human
Resources and Policy Branch, “Building on our strengths: Leading change for the future, OPS HR Plan 2015-20,” 2016;
Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 282-0008; Statistics Canada, “Study: Employment trends in the federal public
service,” The Daily, 2007; Hanna De Vries, Victor Bekkers, and Lars Tummers, “Innovation in the public sector: A
systematic review and future research agenda,” Public Administration, 2015.
feel learning and
development meets
their needs
41%
feel
“highly engaged”
44%
Proportion of workers
doubled since 2000
55 years
62,944
staff
47
average
age
EXHIBIT 5 Your Ontario Public Service
22. 20 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
CASE STUDY:
Making the private public and the public private
The government of Ontario’s 2011
Employee Engagement Survey revealed
that only 44 percent of workers felt
“highly engaged” in their work; this was
a 7 percentage point decrease from
the 2009 survey.39
In other words,
the proportion of engaged workers in
Ontario’s Public Service is relatively low
and declining. The Ontario government
needs to strengthen its internal
capacity and talent to overcome these
issues.
Recruitment focuses on attracting
the “right” workers to an organization,
and websites now serve as a main
recruitment tool.40
The content and
style of the provincial government’s
job application website, along with
the job search tools, are outdated and
unintuitive. Even the “Youth and New
Professionals” page appears to be
a missed opportunity for recruiting
innovative talent. Government is a place
where talented people come together
to solve big questions – this is the song
government recruiters sing to young
professionals.
Now compare this to Google’s
recruitment website, which is more user-
friendly and consistently communicates
that employees “do cool things that
matter.” The recruitment page for
students advertises that working
at Google means youth will “bring
questions” and “build answers.” This type
of messaging (and, of course, following
through on these promises) attracts and
inspires innovative employees (Exhibit 6).
Within Ontario’s Public Service,
employees currently have access to
a wide range of online and in-person
training supports. Many of these are due
for renewal. In 2014, only 41 percent
of policy professionals felt that the
amount of learning and development
they received met their needs.41
This
might be because information about
training supports (housed on the
intranet) can be difficult to navigate
and content on enhancing innovation
is lacking. The recent appointment of a
Chief Talent Officer for Ontario’s Public
Service is a step in the right direction,
and the Institute looks forward to the
development of a more engaged and
innovative leadership team.42
It is also worth discussing how
performance management in Ontario’s
Public Service can enhance innovation.
All employees have a performance
management plan to manage their
professional goals and are subject to
performance evaluations to review
how they accomplished their job
requirements. Both performance
management plans and performance
evaluations can develop and gauge
employee performance. However,
these tools do not consider innovation
activities and worse, are not always
taken seriously by management.43
Other jurisdictions have adopted
alternative ways to motivate employees
to innovate. Some reward innovation
by offering monetary compensation, as
is the case in the US General Services
Administration.44
Other jurisdictions
have built innovation into their
performance management appraisal
system (Singapore) and consistently
state that innovation is part of the
government’s agenda (Finland).45
Finally, internal communication
strategies in Ontario’s Public Service
are due for revision. Many of the tools
used for internal communications – slide
decks and briefing notes – follow pre-set
templates that offer little room for
innovation. These tools stifle employee
creativity and bar new ways of thinking.
In addition, onerous layers of managerial
approvals suppress innovation and
cause unnecessary frustration. Giving
employees autonomy and flexibility to
innovate in how they communicate, as
done through Adobe’s Kickbox initiative,
can overcome these issues. Each
Adobe employee is given a small red
cardboard box that holds the tools to
generate, prototype, and test a new idea
of their choice. This type of initiative
stimulates and builds internal capacity
to innovate.46
Where would you
rather be?
Ontario government recruiting site
Ontario government recruiting site for
youth employment
Google careers website
Google careers website for students
EXHIBIT 6 Government's recruitment message
looks like government
23. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 21
CASE STUDY:
Adding chairs to the table
The government of Ontario is offering greater opportunities for public input on
policy decisions (Exhibit 7). For instance, Ontario’s Environmental Registry
contains public notices about proposed initiatives and coordinates a forum for
public feedback. The input and its impact are also detailed once final decisions
are made.52
Other examples include pre-budget and cap and trade consultations,
as well as the Red Tape Challenge set to launch in 2016.
Unfortunately, these activities can sometimes be “window dressings” rather than
sincere efforts at engagement. Furthermore, the manner in which consultations
take place is often one-sided. Government presents the public with one or several
policy ideas and asks for input – this approach presumes that government is on
the right track and does not allow new ideas to be introduced. Using government’s
coercive powers to co-create policy responses and genuinely increase engagement
can overcome these issues. Learning from the successes of change labs, places
that bring together a range of actors to explore, develop, and test new approaches
to enduring problems, is another way to enhance innovation.53
Alberta’s Open Information and Open Data Policy also demonstrates how public
sectors abroad are increasing engagement and transparency. Developed in
consultation with provincial staff, the Policy was based on the G8 Open Data
Charter.54
Both within and outside of government, institutionalizing open data
policies publicly acknowledges a commitment to engagement and further fosters
informed choices, greater capacity and resiliency within government, and depoliti-
cized processes and outcomes.55
Modifying engagement
Comprehensively tackling “wicked” policy
issues is beyond the government’s capacity.
Engaging with stakeholders and the broader
public is, instead, required to bring in new
ideas.47
As such, government should focus on
creating the right conditions for new ideas to
prosper.48
(See Adding chairs to the table.)
In 2013, Ontario launched the Open
Government Initiative in an effort to increase
access and transparency.49
To date, the
Initiative has published over 400 data sets
as well as public accounts in the form of
infographics.
A number of related projects are also under-
way. For instance, Situation Tables, which
facilitate collaboration amongst diverse
agencies, have been piloted in order to
provide interdisciplinary solutions to “wicked”
problems.50
But more can be done. For example, access
to personal data, particularly health
records, would allow individuals to be more
informed and express greater autonomy.
Understandably, the liberation of any personal
data leads to privacy concerns, and the
Institute encourages Ontario’s Information
and Privacy Commissioner to play an
active role to rectify these issues. The
MyHealth initiative at the MaRS Discovery
District, which helps Canadians access their
own health data through a safe and secure
platform, shows that this is possible.51
Ontario needs to support
innovation in policy
implementation
Enhancing innovation in policy implementa-
tion means refining relationships with delivery
agencies and streamlining services. During the
1990s, Canadian governments significantly
restructured their work by outsourcing a
large amount of policy implementation to
the private sector. This was initially seen as
a creative approach to combine the best
elements of the public sector (who has
legislative capacity and represents civic interests) with the private sector (who
champions efficiency and has in-depth knowledge of user needs).56
As a result,
most services are no longer directly provided by government, who instead
manages contracts and ensures accountability.
Yet efforts to minimize risk and maximize accountability have yielded inflexible
program designs, created excessive administrative burdens, fostered unhealthy
competition between delivery agencies, and fragmented policy challenges along
ministerial mandates.57
In other words, the joining of public interest values and
private sector techniques has backfired with the rise of public sector techniques
and private sector values. This detracts from innovation by reducing collabora-
tion and the ability to direct resources towards new ideas.
Environmental
registry
Red Tape
Challenge
Budget
consultations
MyHealth
EXHIBIT 7 Public policy is open for discussion
24. 22 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
CASE STUDY:
It’s not you, it’s me
Ontario’s Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities contracts over 300 service
providers to deliver skills training and support services. Alarmingly, relationships
between government and service providers are untrusting and unchanging. On an
annual basis, the Ministry tells service providers the resources they are allocated
along with the number and type of services they should provide. There is no nego-
tiation except in extenuating circumstances. Since contracts remain relatively
unchanged from year to year, there is no formal inclusion of best practices or new
ways of providing services. Moreover, delivery agencies are in competition for
clients and therefore reluctant to share information. Overall, this approach fosters
tension and unbalanced relationships, and further reduces incentives to innovate.
A relatively simple way to revitalize relationships with service providers is to
increase flexibility in policy implementation. This means decreasing the administra-
tive burden on delivery agencies by reducing oversight and reporting processes and
holding providers accountable for outcomes, not outputs. Doing so can also signal a
sense of trust between partners and save resources. Mandating service providers
to innovate and collaborate through existing contracts is another solution and uses
government’s coercive powers to encourage new ideas and share resources.
In the 2015-16 Ontario Budget, the province introduced a Transfer Payment
Administration Modernization (TPAM) initiative to create a common registration
process for all transfer payment recipients.59
The Institute applauds this initiative,
which reduces the administrative workload of service providers. Although the
details of the TPAM have yet to be publicly released, the Institute hopes that it
will lead to greater innovation in the implementation of skills training and support
services.
The government of British Columbia has also taken steps to revitalize relationships
with service providers who deliver employment programming. In April 2012, the
Employment Program of British Columbia was launched as a one-stop employment
program to consolidate 10 separate, federally and provincially funded employment
services.60
A network of 84 Employment Services Centres offer individualized
assistance to all BC residents. This has led to a stronger and more relevant suite of
integrated employment services.61
Flexibility in service delivery, however, requires
a true partnership – one that is collaborative and trusting – between and amongst
government and delivery agencies.
Revitalizing relationships
The government of Ontario partners with
various private sector organizations to deliver
programs and services. In theory, this creates
more effective and efficient program delivery.
In practice, these relationships can be unbal-
anced in favour of government who holds the
purse strings (Exhibit 8).58
For example, exist-
ing contractual obligations designed to secure
accountability are, in reality, administratively
burdensome. This diverts resources away from
service delivery and creates tension amongst
and between government officials and service
providers. These outcomes reduce service pro-
viders’ ability and incentive to innovate. (See
It’s not you, it’s me.)
This begs the question of whether Ontario
needs to revisit or revitalize the role of
delivery agencies. Should policymakers start
from scratch or fix the existing model to
better support policy implementation? The
Institute suggests the latter. It is imperative to
investigate why the current model is broken
and determine how government and delivery
service agencies can work better together.
EXHIBIT 8 An unbalanced relationship
GOVERNMENT
DELIVERY
AGENCY
25. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 23
Streamlining services
Government services vary across ministerial
lines. Although ministerial functions are
often interrelated, they frequently operate
in silos. The absence of intra-governmental
collaboration is often due to a lack of lead-
ership and protected policy turf. But failure
to streamline government services places
undue burden on users who must navigate the
web of government offices and sift through
endless paperwork.62
(See It’s better when we’re
together.)
For example, Ontario’s Ministry of Aboriginal
Affairs seeks to “improve the quality of life of
Aboriginal people through development of
sustainable economies and improved social
conditions.”63
This is similar to the mandate of
Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care, which is to “establish a patient-focused,
results-driven, integrated and sustainable
publicly funded health system.”64
Matters
of health are also part of the Ministry of
Community and Social Services’ mandate to
“help adults with a developmental disability…
and Ontarians recover from hardship and
regain control of their lives.”65
This overlap can
make it difficult for users to navigate available
supports and easy to fall through the cracks.
The government of Ontario has taken
steps to enhance innovation by apply-
ing behavioural insights, modifying
engagement with the broader public,
and streamlining services. But more can
be done. Revising funding frameworks,
advancing human resource management,
along with revitalizing service provider
relationships are some areas for improve-
ment. Taking action today can yield more
effective and efficient public services.
Enhancing innovation can also strategically
manage human resources, while foster
democratic engagement and promote the
legitimacy of the public service.
CASE STUDY:
It’s better when we’re together
ServiceOntario, a third-party organization that delivers services
on behalf of the province, is a great example of innovation in
policy implementation. Streamlining services across multiple
ministries, ServiceOntario allows users to access a wide range
of government services such as obtaining accessible parking
permits, drivers’ licences, fishing licences, health cards, legal
certification, and business registrations at one physical or
virtual counter.66
This was achieved by combining transactional
services, websites, and call centres, as well as sharing data and
investing in IT. Consequently, users can access a one-stop shop
of government services, reducing time and effort for individuals
while enhancing government coordination.
Ontario’s approach to housing and homelessness is also worth
highlighting. In 2009, the Ontario government released its
first five-year Poverty Reduction Strategy to break the cycle
of poverty for children and youth and develop a Long-Term
Affordable Housing Strategy.67
Previously, five programs deliv-
ered by two ministries addressed homelessness. These programs
imposed rigid rules, involved complex administration, and had
very little flexibility to manage differences between local commu-
nities. In response, the government introduced the Community
Homelessness Prevention Initiative in 2013. This consolidated
existing efforts into one program administered by one ministry
and delivered by local municipalities. It also focused on outcomes
and better responded to local needs.
The Institute applauds Ontario’s efforts but recognizes more
can be done. In Working Paper 23, the Institute found that the
government of Ontario provides 127 initiatives designed to help
provincial businesses. Alarmingly, these initiatives are spread
across 14 separate ministries, several of which claim to be a one
stop shop.68
This fragmented approach to service delivery not
only wastes time and resources, but also signals that Ontario is
a difficult place to do business. Amalgamating the existing 127
initiatives into a true one stop shop is, without doubt, a challenge,
but can be accomplished by strong senior leadership, intra-
governmental collaboration, and appropriate IT investments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) in the US is also a good
example of how the government can streamline public initiatives.
An independent agency of the federal government, the SBA acts
as a single touchpoint for information provision and delivery of
financial resources, human capital, social supports.69
Bringing
together information at the federal, state, and local levels, the
SBA shows how streamlining government services can increase
the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. Ontario’s
Burden Reduction Projects, a joint initiative between the province
and City of Toronto to identify and remove regulatory and admin-
istrative barriers, is a step in this direction and demonstrates
how intra-governmental collaboration can enhance innovation.70
26. 24 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
E
nhancing government innovation creates
a role for accountability. This ensures
responsible use of public resources,
incentivizes innovation, and creates a sense
of legitimacy. Ontario can advance accountability
in government innovation by capitalizing on
existing tools at the individual and organizational
levels. But there is also an opportunity to embed
accountability for innovation activities into the
third party bodies like the Auditor General and
current legislative processes such as Question
Periods. The province simply needs to first
establish channels and criteria that report on and
evaluate government innovation.
THE ROLE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY
CHAPTER 3
27. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 25
INNOVATION in government cannot occur without appropriate
accountability measures – this ensures that activities achieve
their stated goals. Incorporating accountability into govern-
ment innovation means evaluating activities of individuals and
organizations. This, in turn, requires tools for reporting, a body
to monitor, and criteria to assess innovation.
Yet accountability may also be at odds with innovation.
Innovation often involves trial and error that can lead to
success, which is applauded, or failure for which there is little
appetite. Does innovation, then, require scaling down account-
ability? How can Ontario achieve the required transparency
and accountability while simultaneously embed the desired
dynamism of innovation for a modern government?
Measuring innovation
Tools to account for individual innovation already exist
through performance management plans and performance
evaluations. Earnestly and consistently using these tools can
incentivize innovation and foster a culture that is open to
risk-taking.
Innovation can also be measured at the organizational level.
Ontario currently publishes annual Results-based Planning
Briefing Books by ministry to review organizational
priorities, programs, activities, and results.71
The Institute
recommends broadening this tool to specifically report on
innovative initiatives. Inter-ministerial collaboration should
especially be celebrated. However, as senior leadership
compete for the spotlight on the innovation stage, assessing
innovation by ministry may discourage collaboration.
Revising the Results-based Planning Briefing Books to
report on policy fields rather than ministerial activities can
overcome this concern.
Organizing the Briefing Books by policy fields is similar to the
Ontario government’s exercise of updating its webpages.
Information on government websites is slowly being organized
by topics, not ministries. For example, the “education and
training” topic covers the work carried out by the Ministry of
Education and Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities.
Similarly, the “environment and energy” topic provides
Incorporating
accountability into
government innovation
means evaluating
activities of individuals
and organizations.
28. 26 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
the Annual Report assessed the activities of
ServiceOntario.77
Of the 21 recommendations
made, the Auditor General estimates that only
nine have been fully implemented. Given the
resources and leadership already dedicated
to ServiceOntario, it is difficult to say that
any change is a direct result of the Auditor
General’s role. There is a need to develop new
measures and approaches to monitor govern-
ment, particularly as it relates to innovation.
Rather than merely highlighting past mistakes,
third party accountability bodies can help
change government culture by identifying
risks government can take. Furthermore,
recognizing the primacy of the legislature
(and the elected officials who call it home),
government would benefit if opposition parties
took one session of Question Period per year to
account for innovative policies that have been
pursued, the results achieved, lessons learned,
and plans for future innovation.
information from the Ministry of Energy,
Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change, and Ministry of Natural Resources
and Forestry. Organizing information this way
not only brings ministries together, but has the
added benefit of being a more intuitive way for
the public to obtain information.
Monitoring government
innovation
In addition to the tools for measuring innova-
tion, the Ontario government should task an
external third party to scrutinize government
innovation to advance accountability. The
concept of external oversight is not foreign to
government. The Auditor General, Financial
Accountability Officer, and the Environmental
Commissioner are all independent organizations
designed to serve as provincial watchdogs.
Take the role of Ontario’s Auditor General as
an example. As an officer of the Legislative
Assembly, the Auditor General is mandated to
examine the government’s financial accounts
and transactions, known as Public Accounts.72
In addition, the Auditor General has a
“value-for-money mandate” and assesses
whether the government operates efficiently
and has the tools to measure the effectiveness
of public services.73
The Auditor General’s flagship output is its
Annual Report, which discusses value-for-
money audits of provincial ministries and
agencies. There is also a review of the
government’s progress on the Auditor
General’s audits from the Annual Report
published two years past.74
The Auditor
General’s 2015 Annual Report provided
776 pages of textual analysis and 146 recom-
mendations. But do these lengthy reviews
incite changes in behaviour?75
By its own analysis, only 29 percent of recom-
mendations made by the Auditor General’s
2013 Annual Report have been implemented.76
Although implementation can take time, this
low figure poses the question of whether the
Auditor General incites change. For example,
776-page reports do not incite
behavioural change.
29. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 27
Criteria to evaluate innovation
Finally, the Ontario government needs criteria
to measure innovation. But measuring
innovation is difficult. Not all factors are
quantifiable and what constitutes an innova-
tion is not always identifiable. Traditional
metrics for evaluating innovation, such as
RD investment and number of patents
obtained, may not accurately account for all
innovations and may not be relevant for the
public sector.78
Moreover, there must be a
way to capture innovations that are not
implementable or successful, especially if
they foster a culture that invites change.
The Institute proposes the following criteria to
evaluate innovation according to four
considerations: context investigation, input
itemization, output identification, and
outcome inspection (Exhibit 9). These metrics
follow a performance framework used by
governments around the world, and can be
applied at both the individual and organiza-
tional levels.79
Regardless of whether the Ontario govern-
ment adopts this framework, the Institute
advises government to formulate metrics
to measure innovation. Consultation with
senior leadership, public servants, stake
holders, experts, and the broader public can
yield more appropriate criteria for evaluating
innovation and increases the acceptance of
proposed measures. Crowdsourcing for
accountability metrics is akin to public
consultation initiatives already pursued by
the provincial government.
Enhancing government innovation involves
advancing accountability. However,
existing accountability frameworks may
not be achieving their objectives. Therefore,
the Institute suggests measuring govern-
ment innovation according to four criteria:
context investigation, input itemization,
output identification, and outcome inspec-
tion. This can be done at the individual and
organizational levels, as well as by third
parties and opposition members.
Comprehend, articulate, and reflect on an issue. This creates space for
innovation and lends to a more appropriate solution. Some criteria include:
• Aggregating perspectives of internal and external stakeholders
• Justifying the need to innovate internally and externally
• Specifying the desired outcomes of innovation
• Considering the potential impact on political and institutional environments
1 CONTEXT INVESTIGATION
Tally the financial and human resources involved in innovation.
Key considerations include:
• Detailing the personnel involved (number and qualifications)
• Outlining dollar costs
• Listing data sources consulted
• Stating strategies and timelines
2 INPUT ITEMIZATION
Determine the outputs of innovation, or what was produced.
Criteria include:
• Describing the quality of innovation
• Comparing activities to similar initiatives adopted abroad
• Documenting methodological soundness
• Evaluating the accessibility of outputs
3 OUTPUT IDENTIFICATION
Review the overarching results of innovation. This provides information
about best practices and lessons learned. Key considerations include:
• Linking innovation activities to their intended outcomes
• Assessing the views of internal and external experts and stakeholders
• Examining positive and negative features of innovation
• Reflecting on whether to pursue similar initiatives in the future
4 OUTCOME INSPECTION
EXHIBIT 9 Four criteria to evaluate innovation
30. 28 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
A CALL
TO ENHANCE
GOVERNMENT
INNOVATION
T
here are eight ways the government of
Ontario can enhance innovation. Doing so
enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of
public programs and also serves as a human
resource strategy, increases democratic engagement,
and promotes legitimacy. The Institute presented
feasible opportunities to counter the risk-averse
culture within the Ontario government as well as
enhance innovation in the design, process, and
implementation of public policy. There is also an
opportunity to advance accountability.
RECOMMENDATIONS
31. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 29
Revise funding frameworks to boost
policy design
Funding frameworks determine how policies are designed.
The government of Ontario currently allocates funds along
ministerial lines and according to particular policy initiatives.
But this type of framework can stifle innovation by preventing
resource sharing. Adopting a mission-driven approach allows
resources to flow across ministerial lines, fostering collabora-
tion, thereby enhancing innovation.
Ontario should also expand and centralize innovation funds
to experiment with policy design. There are currently pocket
funds throughout government (such as the Mental Health
Innovation Fund) that create common resource pools from
which management can draw from to facilitate resource
sharing. Communicating for Compliance, an initiative of the
Economic Regulatory Deputy Ministers’ Committee designed
to share learning and experiences about behavioural insights,
can spearhead this initiative. Furthermore, the government of
Canada’s Innovation Hub, located in the Privy Council Office
demonstrates how allocating resources for innovation is practi-
cally and politically possible.82
Integrate innovation into government
activity to counter the risk-averse culture
Government operates in a risk-averse environment and the
province needs to take centralized action to counter this.
Ontario recently announced the Program Review, Renewal,
and Transformation (PRRT) process, an approach to multi-
year planning and budgeting.80
Part of this endeavour involves
meeting annual savings targets, pooling resources and efforts
across ministries as well as focusing on results.81
The Institute applauds this effort and recommends expanding
the scope of the PRRT to counter the risk-averse culture in
government. Improvements to policy design, the policy
process, and policy implementation should specifically be built
into this core government activity. This signals that innovation
is both desirable and acceptable. It also creates a need for
senior leaders to champion innovation.
32. 30 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
Advance human resource management to
strengthen the policy process
There is a need to improve human resource management in
Ontario’s Public Service. The recent appointment of a Chief
Talent Officer is helpful, but more can be done to strengthen
internal capacity and willingness to innovate. This includes
recruitment techniques such as messaging on websites that
communicates that the public service is looking for innovative
talent. In addition, training programs that teach how to think
creatively and drive innovation can be introduced. Creating
a modified Kickbox for public sector workers is one way to do
this. Collaborating with the I-Think initiative, which works
with educators and administrators to bring critical thinking
and problem solving skills into the classroom, can further
provide training to public sector employees. Ontario’s Ministry
of Education currently partners with I-Think, and the Institute
suggests that this relationship extend beyond the classroom.
Ontario’s Public Service also needs to incentivize employee
innovation. This can be done by expanding employees’
performance development plans and performance evaluations
to specify innovation as a professional goal and assess innova-
tion. Consistently using these tools can motivate workers and
foster a culture that is open to change. On a related note,
managers should ensure that internal communications allow
for innovation, model appropriate behaviour, and manage
fears of failure. Simple measures such as providing employees
with more autonomy in the design and presentation of internal
communications can further incentivize innovation. Ontario’s
Treasury Board Secretariat, which is centralizing human
resource services, can play a leadership role.
Apply behavioural insights to improve
policy design
Adopting behavioural insights into policy design can also
enhance innovation. Although the province has taken initiative
in this regard, more can be done. Expanding the number and
scope of policy experiments can, for example, foster a culture
of innovation. The exploration of behavioural insights to policy
making is such an experiment. Enhancing innovation requires
resources – revising funding frameworks and expanding inno-
vation funds can achieve this.
Integrating behavioural insights in policy design does,
however, require experimentation. Experimentation, in turn,
requires a willingness to try new things, acceptance of failure,
and a readiness to repeat, but also transparency in the
reporting and evaluation of outcomes. The government of
Ontario needs to be more publicly upfront about the number
of experiments conducted, the resources committed to these
initiatives, as well as their results. Publicly reporting on policy
experiments can enhance the number and quality of innova-
tions, counter a risk-averse culture, and advance accountability.
The Policy Innovation Leadership (PIL) group, which
provides learning activities and disseminates best practices
to the policy community within Ontario’s Public Service, can
lead this work.83
The Institute also recommends further incorporating design
thinking into policy design. An example where this can be
applied to is ServiceOntario’s website and telephone line.
ServiceOntario’s website is currently outdated and does not
coherently provide information, and its telephone service is not
client-oriented. Thinking about how users access information
can overcome these issues.
33. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 31
Revitalize relations between government
and delivery agencies to upgrade policy
implementation
Today, many public programs and services are provided by
third party agencies. Instead of joining public interest values
with private sector techniques, public sector techniques and
private sector values are now commonplace. This reduces
collaboration and resource sharing, both of which are
necessary for innovation. It is time to conduct a qualitative
assessment of government agencies to determine the
appropriateness of their scope and mission, along with the
accountability agreements and required mechanisms.
Ontario needs to revitalize relations between government and
service providers to generate better policy outcomes, not
administrative burdens and unequal partnerships. Broadening
the mandate of service providers and assessing their innova-
tion performance can incentivize innovation. Moreover, asking
service providers to take chances and adopt a moderate level
of risk demonstrates trust and indicates that government does
not always have ready-made solutions.84
Listening to front-line
staff and allowing them to experiment can also enhance
innovation.85
Greater flexibility, along with support to properly
experiment, can yield more personalized approaches as
opposed to one-size-fits-all policy models.86
Modify the quality and scope of engagement
to support the policy process
Ontario needs to modify its relationship with the broader
public. The Open Government and MyHealth initiatives
are great steps in this direction, but more can be done.
Institutionalizing open data policies, as the case in Alberta,
demonstrates commitment to enhancing engagement both
within and outside of the public service. The Institute suggests
that Ontario adopts a similar Open Government policy or
become a signatory to the G8 Open Data Charter to formalize
what engagement means and how it will be conducted. This,
in turn, can enhance consistency, transparency, and account-
ability. Being sensitive to privacy concerns, government should
also provide people with greater access to their personal data,
starting with health records.
Public consultations often involve government asking the
public what they think of a proposed policy initiative but rarely
does government crowdsource for new ideas. Furthermore,
public consultations sometimes take place without sufficient
time to truly investigate alternative perspectives. Ontario needs
to use its coercive powers to increase public engagement.
Instead of asking the public to voluntarily comment on a policy
paper, targeted groups can be mandated to prescribe options or
participate in mind labs. The Ontario government should
consider tasking an interdisciplinary team of bureaucrats,
experts, and public members to adopt a design thinking
approach to solve “wicked” policy problems in a competition
setting. This is a radically different take on the traditional
policy process but can yield appropriate and relevant outcomes.
34. 32 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
Streamline services to refine policy
implementation
Integrated service delivery requires bigger policy silos, or better
collaboration across and within government. This requires
ministries to work together on large policy problems that touch
multiple issues, rather than each ministry work on their piece
of the problem in isolation. These partnerships can foster
innovative ways of thinking and problem solving. Ontario has
already taken action to streamline service delivery but there is
more to be done. The Institute recommends that the province
organize public services and internal decision-making across
policy objectives. Adopting a mission-driven approach can
share resources and integrate services, creating ripe opportuni-
ties for innovation.
In particular, the Institute suggests that the Ontario
government work with its federal and municipal counterparts
to streamline services. Merging services offered to businesses
provided by ServiceOntario, Service Canada, and local
governments is a step in this direction.
Monitor government innovation to enhance
accountability
The government of Ontario has tools to account for innovation
at the individual and organizational levels. The Institute
recommends that employees’ performance management plans
be broadened to evaluate workers’ propensity to innovate.
The Institute also recommends expanding Results-based
Planning Briefing Books to report on government’s innovative
initiatives by policy field. The criteria proposed in this
Working Paper – context investigation, input itemization,
output identification, and outcome inspection – are some
metrics to assess innovation and can be followed or expanded
upon following broader consultation.
Tasking an external third party to scrutinize government
innovation can also advance accountability. The Institute is
mandated to report on innovation and share findings directly
with the public. Given its mandate and interest in enhancing
government innovation, the Institute is ready to monitor and
report on these activities in our Annual Report. Third party
bodies of the legislature like the Auditor General should
dedicate a section of their Annual Report to evaluate
government innovation – this can provide an alternative
perspective on government innovation and stimulate a
broader conversation. On the political side, opposition parties
should allocate one session of Question Period to review the
context, inputs, outputs, and outcomes associated with
government innovation.
35. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 33
Government needs
to innovate in the
design, process, and
implementation of
policy. Many of the
problems we face
as a province require
new approaches,
new solutions, and
new voices.
36. 34 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
22 Ibid.; Good and Brown, “Workplace innovation in Canada’s public service,” Public
Policy Forum, 2011, p. 9.
23 Tim Brown, Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation, New York: HarperBusiness, 2009. Determining missions and
how often they should be renewed can be a combined effort of elected officials,
experts, and citizens.
24 Tony Dean, Building better public services: A guide for practitioners, Toronto:
FriesenPress, 2015.
25 Osborne and Gaebler, Reinventing government, 1992, pp. 108-37.
26 Paul Foley, “Competition as public policy: A review of challenging funding,” Public
Administration, 1999, Vol. 77, No. 4, p. 809.
27 Ibid., p. 815. Winning bidders take ownership of both the problem to be addressed
and its solution, usually in partnership and with the private sector.
28 Ibid., p. 816. Although it varies by policy field, challenge funding is generally very
successful in attracting bids – this suggests that the concept is widely accepted.
29 James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, “Institutional perspectives on political
institutions,” Governance, 1996, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 247-64. Moreover, individual
preferences are seen as relatively stable across all persons and over time, which
implies that behaviour is predictable.
30 Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving decisions about health,
wealth, and happiness, New York: Penguin Publishing Group, 2009; Adam M.
Lavecchia, Heidi Liu, and Philip Oreopoulos, Behavioural economics of education:
Progress and possibilities, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper
Series, Working Paper No. 20609, October 2014.
31 The initial form took up two columns of an 8.5 X 11” sheet of paper and provided
copious amounts of information.
32 About 44 percent of this amount was a one-time cost.
33 “Compendium of case studies,” Federal Provincial Territorial Policy Innovation
Conference, 2015.
34 Carrot Rewards also provides government with large amounts of data (collected
through the app) that captures behavioural changes. This further provides govern-
ment with data to report on and evaluate the program.
35 Richard J Brennan, “Province’s civil service managers getting $58M in raises to ease
wage freeze,” The Toronto Star, December 16, 2015.
36 Dave Ulrich, Delivering results: A new mandate for human resource professionals,
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998, pp. 29-44.
37 Robert Lewis and William F. DeLaney, “Promoting innovation and creativity,”
Industrial Research Institute, Inc., 1991, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 1, 6; Mulgan,
“Innovation in the public sector,” Nesta, 2015, pp. 14-15; Good and Brown,
“Workplace innovation in Canada’s public service,” Public Policy Forum, 2011, p. 9;
Maddock, “Making modernisation work,” The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 2002, p. 38.
38 Institute for Competitiveness Prosperity, Working Paper 19, The realities of
Ontario’s public sector compensation, February 2014.
39 Frank Wendling, “Letter to Peter Wallace,” Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Region 4, November 19, 2012.
40 Schwind et al. Human Resources Management, 2013.
41 “Our best advice,” Cabinet Office Policy Delivery, 2015.
42 Tony Dean, “The AG’s report also had some positive things to say,” Queen’s Park
Briefing, 2015.
43 Oscar Huerta Melchor, “The government workforce of the future: Innovation in
strategic workforce planning in OECD countries,” OECD Working Papers on Public
Governance No. 21, April 2013.
44 Christian Bason, Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society,
2010, p. 129.
45 Ibid., pp. 128-9.
46 David Burkus, “Inside Adobe’s innovation kit,” Harvard Business Review, 2015.
47 Dean, Building better public services, 2015.
48 Mariana Mazzucato, “The entrepreneurial state,” Demos, 2011, p. 17.
49 “Open government,” Government of Ontario, 2015; Don G. Lenihan, “Open by
default: A new way forward for Ontario,” Government of Ontario, 2014. For
example, the Team recommended launching a “one stop” platform and app that
consolidates information of all public engagement initiatives.
1 Mark Moore and Sanjeev Khagram, “On creating public value: What business
might learn from government about strategic management,” Corporate Social
Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 3, 2004, pp. 7-9.
2 “Our best advice: Continuing to deliver,” Cabinet Office Policy Delivery, 2015.
3 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Eurostat, Oslo
manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd Edition,
Paris: OECD Publishing, 2005.
4 Belinda Luke, Martie-Louise Verreynne and Kate Kearins, “Innovative and
entrepreneurial activity in the public sector: The changing face of public sector
institutions,” Innovation: Management, Policy Practice, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 2,
p. 139; Eurostat, The community innovation survey, European Commission, 2012;
Geoff Mulgan, “Innovation in the public sector: How can public organizations better
create, improve, and adapt?” Nesta, 2015, p. 5; Clive Savory, “Building knowledge
translation capability into public-sector innovation processes,” Technology Analysis
Strategic Management, 2009, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 150.
5 Stephen P. Osborne, Voluntary organizations and innovation in public services,
London: Routledge, 1998.
6 Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress, Ninth annual
report, Today’s innovation, tomorrow’s prosperity, 2010, p. 50. The Institute was
formerly the research arm of the Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and
Economic Progress.
7 MPI Staff, “The case for trying (…and sometimes failing),” The Martin Prosperity
Institute Commentary, 2016.
8 Aaron Good and Mary-Rose Brown, “Workplace innovation in Canada’s public
service: How collaborative approaches, dynamic workspaces, and enabling tech-
nology can deliver greater value to Canadians,” Public Policy Forum, 2011, p. 4;
Institute for Competitiveness Prosperity, “The Ontario government should pursue
innovation, not just promote it,” Blog, September 2014; Su Maddock, “Making
modernisation work: New narratives, change strategies and people management in
the public sector,” The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 2002,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 13-43; Jo Casebourne, “Why motivation matters in public sector
innovation,” Nesta, 2006, p. 6.
9 Ibid.
10 Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity, and Economic Progress, Today’s
innovation, tomorrow’s prosperity, 2010, pp. 50-1.
11 John C. Camillus, “Strategy as a wicked problem,” Harvard Business Review, May
2008; Nesta, “Social innovation: New approaches to transforming public services.”
Policy Briefing, January 2008, p. 1. “Wicked” problems are issues with innumerable
causes that do not have a ready solution. A potential downside of encouraging
diverse insights are policy gridlock and long decision-making processes.
12 Casebourne, “Why motivation matters in public sector innovation,” Nesta, 2006,
p. 6.
13 Hermann Schwind, Hari Das, Terry Wagar, Neil Fassing, et. al., Canadian Human
Resource Management: A Strategic Approach (10th Ed.), Whitby: McGraw-Hill
Ryerson, 2013.
14 Zsuzsanna Lonti and Anil Verma, “The determinants of flexibility and innovation
in the government workplace: Recent evidence from Canada,” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 2003, Vol. 13, No. 3, p. 285.
15 Good and Brown, “Workplace innovation in Canada’s Public Service,” Public Policy
Forum, 2011, p. 3.
16 Ibid.; Caroline J. Tolbert, Karen Mossberger, and Ramona McNeal, “Institutions,
policy innovation, and e-government in the American states,” Public Administration
Review, 2008, Vol. 68, Nov. 3, pp. 549-63.
17 Good and Brown, “Workplace innovation in Canada’s Public Service,” Public Policy
Forum, 2011, p. 2.
18 Richard M. Walker, Emma Jeanes and Robert Rowlands, “Measuring innovation:
Applying the literature-based innovation output indicator to public services,” Public
Administration, 2001, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 201-4.
19 Luke, Verreynne, and Kearins, “Innovative and entrepreneurial activity in the public
sector,” Innovation: Management, Policy Practice, 2010, p. 139.
20 Maddock, “Making modernisation work,” The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 2002, p. 17; David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing govern-
ment: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector, Toronto:
Penguin Books, 1992; Richard Paton and Christiane Dodge, “Reinventing adminis-
trative policies for the 1990s: Administrative policy reform in Canada,” International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 1995, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 6-18.
21 Osborne and Gaebler, Reinventing government, 1992, pp. 108-37.
END NOTES
37. LICENCE TO INNOVATE: HOW GOVERNMENT CAN REWARD RISK 35
50 Unsurprisingly, situation tables have raised a number of privacy concerns given that
they involve the sharing of personal information amongst different organizations.
51 “MyHealth,” MaRS Discovery District, accessed 7 January 2016,
https://www.marsdd.com/myhealth/.
52 Government of Ontario, “What’s on the Registry?” Environmental Registry,
accessed 5 January 2016, http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/content/
about.jsp?f0=aboutTheRegistry.info.
53 “Change labs and government in Canada: Summary report,” Canada’s Public Policy
Forum, 2013, pp. 2-3. Change labs have been implemented in Australia, Denmark,
Finland, Singapore, UK, and US.
54 United Kingdom Cabinet Office, “G8 Open Data Charter,” 2013. Alberta was one of
the first subnational governments to be a signatory to the Charter, and expects that
this will empower individuals and businesses to use information, while encourage
dialogue between government and the public. The government of Canada is also a
signatory to the Charter.
55 Dean, Building better public services, 2015.
56 Stephen Osborne, “The new public governance,” Public Management Review, 2006,
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 377-87. This approach to governance was labelled new public
management and sought to capitalize on lessons from the private sector.
57 Lewis and DeLaney, “Promoting innovation and creativity,” Industrial Research
Institute, Inc., 1991, p. 1.
58 Casebourne, “Why motivation matters in public sector innovation,” Nesta, 2006, p. 7.
59 Ontario Ministry of Finance, “Building Ontario up,” 2015, p. 206. TPAM is designed
to provide oversight of the “full financial relationship” between government and
third-party organizations.
60 Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, “Employment Program of BC,”
Government of British Columbia, updated January 28, 2016, accessed February 4,
2016, http://www.eia.gov.bc.ca/Programs/epbc/index.htm.
61 Dean, Building better public services, 2015.
62 Ibid.
63 Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, “Published plans and annual
reports 2015-2016: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs,” updated December
2, 2015, accessed January 7, 2016, https://www.ontario.ca/page/
published-plans-and-annual-reports-2015-2016-ministry-aboriginal-affairs.
64 Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, “About the ministry,” updated
December 23, 2015, accessed January 4, 2016, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/
common/ministry/default.aspx.
65 Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, “About the ministry: Our
programs and services,” updated March 22, 2013, accessed January 5, 2016,
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/about/.
66 ServiceOntario, “ServiceOntario,” updated February 1, 2016, accessed February 4,
2016, https://www.ontario.ca/page/serviceontario.
67 Ministry of Children and Youth Services, Breaking the Cycle: Ontario’s Poverty
Reduction Strategy, Government of Ontario, 2008.
68 Institute for Competitiveness Prosperity, Working Paper 23, A place to grow:
Scaling up Ontario’s firms, January 2016, pp. 20-4.
69 The US Small Business Administration, “What We Do,” accessed January 6, 2016,
https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/what-we-do.
70 Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure,
“Ontario and Toronto collaborating on eight burden reduction projects,” News
Release, November 23, 2015.
71 Ontario Treasury Board, “Results-based plans by ministry (2014-15),” updated
December 11, 2015, accessed January 6, 2016, https://www.ontario.ca/page/
ministry-reports-results-based-planning-2014-15.
72 Office of the Auditor General of Ontario, “What we do,” updated June 29, 2015,
accessed January 10, 2016, http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/about_what_en.htm.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid. The Annual Report further reviews government advertising.
75 The Auditor General publishes news releases that are much shorter in length but
rely on text.
76 Bonnie Lysyk, “Annual Report 2015,” Office of the Auditor General of Ontario,
2015, pp. 581-2.
77 Ibid., pp. 671-86. These recommendations centered on service delivery, user
fees, issuing and managing services, quality of processing transactions, and
IT performance.
78 Walker, Jeanes and Rowlands. “Measuring innovation.” Public Administration, 2001,
p. 205; Nesta, “Measuring innovation,” Policy Briefing, 2008, Vol. 25, p. 1.
79 Kevin Page, “External review of the Office for Budget Responsibility,” United
Kingdom Office for Budget Responsibility, 2014, pp. 19-20; Helaina Gaspard,
Sahir Khan and Kevin Page, “Evaluating the performance of independent fiscal
institutions: Towards a common evaluation framework,” (Forthcoming).
80 Ontario Ministry of Finance, “Ontario economic outlook and fiscal review,”
Background Papers, 2014, p. 7; The Honourable Deb Matthews, “Smarter
choices, better outcomes: Program review, renewal, and transformation,”
Remarks to the Economic Club of Toronto, February 9, 2015. The PRRT evaluates
public programs and services according to four criteria: relevancy, effectiveness,
efficiency, and sustainability.
81 The Honourable Charles Sousa, “Building Ontario up,” Ontario Ministry of Finance,
2015, p. 203. Led by the Ontario’s Treasury Board, the PRRT builds on the work of
the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services.
82 Mark Burgess, “Public service renewal up, Economic Action Plan down in PCO
spending plans,” The Hill Times, 6 April 2015. Launched in February 2015, the
Innovation Hub takes advantage of new technologies and helps departments embed
new tools (such as behavioural economics, big data, and social innovation) into the
public service’s work.
83 Ontario Government Premier’s Office, “Published plans and annual reports
2015-16: Cabinet Office,” 2015.
84 Jonathan Breckon, “Better public services through experimental government,”
Nesta, 2015, p. 7.
85 Ibid., pp. 22-6.
86 Dean, Building better public services, 2015.
38. 36 INSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVENESS PROSPERITY
Annual Reports
FIRSTANNUAL REPORT – Closing the prosperity gap, November 2002
SECOND ANNUAL REPORT – Investing for prosperity, November 2003
THIRD ANNUAL REPORT – Realizing our prosperity potential, November 2004
FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT – Rebalancing priorities for prosperity, November 2005
FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT – Agenda for our prosperity, November 2006
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT – Path to the 2020 prosperity agenda, November 2007
SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT – Leaning into the wind, November 2008
EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT – Navigating through the recovery, November 2009
NINTH ANNUAL REPORT – Today’s innovation, tomorrow’s prosperity, November 2010
TENTH ANNUAL REPORT – Prospects for Ontario’s prosperity, November 2011
ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT – A push for growth: The time is now, November 2012
TWELFTH ANNUAL REPORT – Course correction: Charting a new road map for Ontario, November 2013
THIRTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT – Finding its own way: Ontario needs to take a new tack, November 2014
FOURTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT – Disruptions ahead: The making of a dynamic and resilient Ontario economy, November 2015
Working Papers
WORKING PAPER 1 – A View of Ontario: Ontario’s Clusters of Innovation, April 2002
WORKING PAPER 2 – Measuring Ontario’s Prosperity: Developing an Economic Indicator System, August 2002
WORKING PAPER 3 – Missing opportunities: Ontario’s urban prosperity gap, June 2003
WORKING PAPER 4 – Striking similarities: Attitudes and Ontario’s prosperity gap, September 2003
WORKING PAPER 5 – Strengthening structures: Upgrading specialized support and competitive pressure, July 2004
WORKING PAPER 6 – Reinventing innovation and commercialization policy in Ontario, October 2004
WORKING PAPER 7 – Taxing smarter for prosperity, March 2005
WORKING PAPER 8 – Fixing fiscal federalism, October 2005
WORKING PAPER 9 – Time on the job: Intensity and Ontario’s prosperity gap, September 2006
WORKING PAPER 10 – Prosperity, inequality and poverty, September 2007
WORKING PAPER 11 – Flourishing in the global competitiveness game, September 2008
WORKING PAPER 12 – Management matters, March 2009
WORKING PAPER 13 – Management matters in retail, March 2010
WORKING PAPER 14 – Trade, innovation, and prosperity, September 2010
WORKING PAPER 15 – Small business, entrepreneurship, and innovation, February 2012
WORKING PAPER 16 – Making sense of public dollars: Ontario government revenue, spending, and debt, May 2013
WORKING PAPER 17 – Untapped potential: Creating a better future for service workers, October 2013
WORKING PAPER 18 – Taxing for growth: A close look at tax policy in Ontario, October 2013
WORKING PAPER 19 – The realities of Ontario’s public sector compensation, February 2014
WORKING PAPER 20 – Building better health care: Policy opportunities for Ontario, April 2014
WORKING PAPER 21 – Open for business: Strategies for improving Ontario’s business attractiveness, May 2015
WORKING PAPER 22 – Better foundations: The returns on infrastructure investment in Ontario, September 2015
WORKING PAPER 23 – A place to grow: Scaling up Ontario’s firms, January 2016
PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS
40. LICENCE TO
INNOVATE
How government can
reward risk
24WP
WP24LICENCETOINNOVATE:HOWGOVERNMENTCANREWARDRISK
ISBN: 978-1-927065-16-7
WORKING PAPER
FEBRUARY 2016
24
