I had a good read through your paper. Girl, there’s some work to get through.

I suppose the easiest way would be to take your 8 questions, put it up on a blog (or somesuch) on the innovation (very corporate) site and do like Nic and co have done here, and tell the people at govdex that it’s OK to talk at your domain. I don’t suppose any of your management committee would like to talk online?

I’ve never seen a decent definition of Innovation, and argue with the guys looking after the Wikipedia page. So if you’ll accept mine; that its “a measure of the way societies respond to a new discovery or technology” and so divisions, like sectors and industries, have to be lumped together, then maybe we could talk a bit constructively. Innovation always seems to come about between traditional divisions, with the ones of education and government being the place where all the action happens (or not).

I think combining the NBN development approach with Socialinclusion is probably the best way to go. It offers so much promise for creatives in media who have to go (have gone) overseas at present. Australia may not grow many philosophers but it’s a sea of great technical talent; most of which has been frustrated by a foreigner putting shareholders before the National good. This really starts by having a conversations rather than trading reports. And nothing happens before a common ID for all citizens is in place.

Most of the other stuff is primarily cultural, which will take leadership (in the management committee, in your case) to change. The only way i can put this suggestion (diplomatically) is; there are very few creative industries in Canberra and they need encouragement.

I did suggest to Pia, who’ll be coming in, with Kate Lundy, to see the Minister and present a report soon that it would be great to run a half day workshop with the ICT committee, and link together the communities in Brisbane, Mel, Woollongong and Canberra, like Pia did during the last publicsphere. A lot of this has to do about using media in different ways, so the social dynamics can change. I think running distributed conferences – streaming and recording – will help the old folks change their spots.

But bring Terry Cutler in to be MC. Some old folks shouldn’t change their spots.

There is a lot to be said for the “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach to solving complex problems. Given the obstacles innovators have to overcome anyway, adding more in the name of “innovation efficiency” is counter-productive.

I think that Stephen and Craig are the best people to talk on the subject. I am just a rebel innovator and they have better understanding of the PAS dynamic.

As has been suggested, I think that its important that discussions start to move across to the ideascale forum which already contains a wealth of practical suggestions for fostering web innovation in the APS

While I am understanding of the need for discussion, policy creation, and all the good work that you folks are doing, there is a strong mood to get some real projects underway

I think that these, and a dedication to their documentation, will go a long way to starting to understand the opportunities, impediments, etc.

Innovation grows in areas of opportunity and is stifled by too much structure.

A risk in government, as in the corporate world, is to attempt to create an ‘innovation framework’ – which begins by encouraging innovation within a particular model or approach and eventually because a hidebound bureaucracy which inhibits innovation it doesn’t recognise as within ‘acceptable parameters’.

Provide support, authority, resourcing and some general goals or problems, then let people evolve the frameworks that best deliver the outcomes.

Don’t tie peoples’ arms behind their backs with processes and procedures – and give them a honeymoon period to get a solution right before they sort out the governance details government requires.

appoint senior people (around the EL2 level) in every agency to be catalysts for innovation – give them some budget and explicit senior management support to just try things

I have been closely involved with trying to build an innovation program in my organisation (a large utility) and the single biggest failing is when it comes to implementation.

Getting people to *think* about innovation is one thing, but it is heartbreaking to see an individual finally build up the the courage to make a suggestion or try something new, only to have all their avenues for support be closed off..

Both ends of the candle need to be lit.. get people fired up to innovate, but at the same time, get the leadership and the funds sorted out to allow all those ideas the chance to become reality..

The other big barrier is often an overly retrictive ICT policy (ie technical restrictions on software/protocols etc), but getting the leadership issue solved can often help to overcome that if it is necessary..

Exciting times!

Let the innovators innovate and change and innovation will happen.

Couldn’t agree more

Cheers,

Rae

I’ve already suggested a couple of different ideas for encouraging innovation within the PS over at the gov2au ideascale, however it really does come down to cultural change.

Find the people who are itching for change, who have the ideas, give them enough rope, and if they fail (and this is the important part) Don’t Hang Them.

Put the infrastructure in place the encourages the development of new lines of thinking. Free form communication via a Govt Social Network, an open forge for Government Software and documentation, hell encourage face to face gatherings, run internal Barcamps and get not only the twitterati involved but the decision makers, the Department Heads and Ministers involved.

I don’t think we can prevent that and I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. Some might regard it as inefficient and requiring rework to achieve some consolidated solution but I don’t believe you can create a controlled environment for innovation.

Multiple approaches to a seemingly common problem will mean that the chosen solution has been proven and other approaches shown to be sub-optimal. It may also show that a common problem may not actually be that common.

We should allow innovation to occur wherever and however innovators choose and facilitate the natural selection process that brings the outputs of such innovation together and where appropriate select one idea to become the new process, new framework, new application … and let the other ones die. Evolution.