The document discusses strategies for implementing innovation in local government agencies with limited resources. It advocates learning from larger cities' successes, starting with small pilot programs, and gaining leadership support. The author details how he helped the city of Richmond create a tool to help low-income residents locate grocery stores by adapting an existing program from Philadelphia. He argues this approach allows smaller municipalities to scale innovative ideas more affordably and with less risk than developing programs independently from scratch.

1. 59the public manager | Winter 2013
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The state of New York operated with revenues close to $206 billion in
2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In that same period, North Dakota
citizens received services based on revenues of $5.5 billion. This difference in
resources (see Figure 1) does not excuse a municipality from providing basic ser-
vice to its citizens. It does, however, set the stage for a battle against innovation.
We are naturally averse to spending on perceived non-necessities dur-
ing periods of lean budgets. Most people do it with their personal disposable
income. Most politicians who believe re-election is essential follow the same
rule. So why expect a resource-strapped municipality to fall out of line? The
city of Richmond is no exception.
I am serving in the city of Richmond for one year with a fellowship from
an organization called Fuse Corps. My role is to apply my entrepreneurial
background to local government. Specifically, I am charged with being innova-
tive in tackling multiple low-income problems that contribute to a 23 percent
poverty rate. Within a year I will develop a structure for these solutions to
exist and a support system for them to live through the following two years.
During the second month of my fellowship I attended a Mayor’s Inno-
vation Summit in Philadelphia. It was there that I spoke with mayors from
if i could make a plan
work in the Department
of Social Services, then
other agency directors
in the city could use
these methods. if it
works in the city of
richmond, then it could
work in other cities and
agencies.
Scaling Innovation:
Applying Entrepreneurism
to Local Government
by thomas houston

2. WWW.thepublicmanager.ORG60
Alexandria, Virginia; Madison, Wisconsin; Louisville,
Kentucky; and Hallandale Beach, Florida. Through
those conversations I realized that Richmond was not
alone in its struggles to implement innovation. I knew
that my methods toward success were applicable to other
municipalities and government agencies.
Lending to Other Cities
As I was looking at success through a 36-month lens, I
focused on scalable innovation. If I could make a plan
work in the Department of Social Services, then other
agency directors in the city could use these methods. If
it works in the city of Richmond, then it could work in
other cities and agencies of the same size or smaller.
The idea is simple. Create a three-step archetype in
anticipation of duplication. Step one: Learn from large
city success stories. Step two: Embrace the little bets.
Step three: Pursue leadership’s vocal support of the ini-
tiatives upfront.
Borrowing from Other Cities
In 2008, the first large-scale bicycle-sharing program
arrived in Washington, D.C. By 2014, such cities as
Des Moines, Iowa; Boulder, Colorado; and Omaha,
Nebraska, will contribute to this initiative that boasts
more than 50 city partners (see Figure 2). These smaller
cities allowed Washington to work out the kinks of dock-
ing stations, pay systems, and ridership. The cost asso-
ciated with the learning curve was born by a city that
had the ability to absorb the growing pains. Thus when
smaller cities joined the movement they were able to
focus their resources on implementation and stage two
innovations such as reduced bike rack infrastructure due
to GPS tracking.
The city of Richmond took the same approach in
its effort to provide low-income residents access to retail
locations that accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) benefits. Originally, the city used a
program called snapfresh. The application pulls location
data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s SNAP
retailer locator database and sends it to requestors in a
digital top five list. The list is based on proximity to what-
ever ZIP code, or address, is provided in the application.
Although it’s a good tool, it lacks personalization.
More importantly, by using it Richmond is relying on the
hope that a stand-alone application has the resources to
last as long as we need it.
I am uncomfortable with this reality. I wanted to
build something that felt like Richmond. Unfortunately,
I had no access to a coder because the city doesn’t staff
one and a budget didn’t exist to hire one. But the City of
Philadelphia has a coder—and he created a personalized
site called Phillysnap for the city.
I reached out to Philadelphia Director of Civic Tech-
nology Tim Wisniewski, who was willing to help Rich-
mond use Philadelphia’s model to create its own SNAP
tool. He tweaked Phillysnap and delivered a 2.0 version
that now allows Richmond to configure the file to point
to our ArcGIS server via a config file. Now Richmond’s
information technology department can implement a
resource that helps citizens at a fraction of the cost, time,
and headache of attempting to start from scratch.
Figure 1. Key State Earning and Expense (2011)
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000
Alabama
California
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Total Expenses (in Millions)
Total Revenue (in Millions)

3. 61The Public Manager | WINTER 2013
Embracing Little Bets
A business strategy proposed by James Collins and Jerry
Porras in their book Built to Last: Successful Habits of
Visionary Companies (Harper Business Essentials, 1994)
says that an idea too large to implement with ease scares
people. However, a small step feels attainable. Peter Sims
concurs in his book Little Bets. He suggests that smaller
ideas allow individuals to discover, test, and achieve
affordable activities. These “little bets” together develop
a pattern of wins. This pattern develops a roadmap. That
roadmap is what gets people excited.
Building a history of wins is important to advancing
a project that has to move within a 12-month timeframe.
At its core is the need to create a bandwagon that people
aren’t afraid to jump on. My main project in Richmond
was to introduce to the city a program called AuntBer-
tha. This implementation involved getting the Depart-
ment of Social Services to buy into the concept of using
an external tool to make recommendations to city resi-
dents. Local organizations needed to buy into the idea
that more customers don’t mean overwhelmed resources.
Nobody wanted to touch it. So instead of introduc-
ing it as an all-inclusive tool I worked with each cog in the
wheel of success independently.
As each partner would gain something different from
AuntBertha it made sense to emphasize the portion of the
tool that benefited their needs the most. After six months
of taking small steps, making small bets, the application
is funded, operational, and being used not just across the
city but regionally in the greater Richmond area.
Pursuing Leadership Support Upfront
As a child, my mom told me not to ask her for some-
thing in front of my friends because the answer would
always be no. She said that the two of us should have
those discussions in private so that we were on the same
page in front of company. The same principle applies
to implementing change in an organization, govern-
ment agency, or municipality. Rolling out new initia-
tives without the view of management support upfront
breeds fear.
In a Rosabeth Kanter article titled, “Ten Reasons
People Resist Change” (Harvard Business Review, 2012),
she says it is not that people are afraid of more work or
even the glaring admission that whoever implemented
the previous initiative no longer controls the shiny object.
It’s that change may reveal real threats. To minimize the
discomfort of change, Kanter suggests that organization
leaders, not project leaders, must be honest and transpar-
ent about the change.
For example, as part of a new process, I developed a
customer service survey to find opportunities for change.
Management did not share the decision to implement the
customer-focused, month-long on-site survey with employ-
ees of the agency. Initially there was quiet panic. There was
no motivation to request customers to participate.
If leadership had taken time in the beginning to share
the goals of the survey employees would have understood
that it was about available resources and not their perfor-
mance. Even though a significant portion of customers
participated in the survey, the final count could have been
double and employee morale could have been saved.
Following the Plan
to Make Innovation Scalable
Richmond recognizes the shortage of resources. However,
to transition from a tier 1 to a tier 2 city this cannot be
an excuse. Instead, the shortage must lead us to a focused
approach to problem solving.
As many governments look for a magic solution, look
to the city of Richmond. By learning from large-city suc-
cess stories, embracing little bets, and partnering with
peer cities, they can see similar levels of success. And the
best part is that it can be replicated.
Thomas Houston is a strategic marketer with more than 10 years of Fortune
100 advertising, innovation, and team building experience. He also has served
as an adjunct professor of marketing and consumer behavior at the University
of the District of Columbia. Contact him at execute2025@gmail.com.
Figure 2. Bike-Sharing Programs
in the United States, 2007-2014
Note: 2013 and 2014 are projections.
NumberofPrograms
Source: Earth Policy Institute
Figure 2. Bike-Sharing Programs in the United States, 2007-2014
Austin-the author sent two originals, ideas for re-creating
Number of Programs
Note: 2013 and 2014 are projections.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Source: Earth Policy Institute, (May 2013)
Austin—I am also including these values that can help you make the graph precise.
Number of programs Projected Programs
2007 1
2008 2
2009 2
2010 7
2011 15
2012 21
2013 26 18
2014 26 27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20142013201220112010200920082007
Copyright ASTD 2013-2014