The role of interorganizational relationships in public sector innovation: the case of the Community Risk Intervention Teams Megan L. Anderson [email protected] Leiden University Keywords: public sector, innovation, inter­organizational relationships, emergency services Introduction The role of interorganizational relationships (IORs) in public sector innovation is little explored in the literature. Notwithstanding a growing body of research on how innovation is achieved through strategic alliances and collaborative networks (Belussi and Arcangeli 1998), communities of practice (Wenger 2000), innovation systems (Lundvall 1985; Freeman 1995), industrial sector clusters (Crouch and Voelzkow 2009) or open innovation with members of society (Chesborough 2003), much of the discussion remains conceptually elusive and private sector oriented. For example, in the literature some scholars see innovation as occurring ​through​ inter-organizational relationships. Similarly others see inter-organizational collaboration as ​drivers, vehicles or ​catalysts ​for innovation (e.g. Bekkers et al. 2013: 20), and still yet some scholars define new forms of inter-organizational relationships as innovations in and of themselves (e.g. Green, Howells & Miles 2002). The distinction between different types of IORs have been acknowledged by public administration and political science scholars scholars (see Agranoff 2007; Milward and Provan 2006; Sandfort and Milward 2008). At the same time, public sector innovation scholars have highlighted the importance of organizational networks, collaboration and an “ecological approach” in the study of public sector innovation (see ​Bekkers et al. 2013, Bommert 2010 and Sörensen & Torfing 2011). Nevertheless, few have attempted to seriously integrate the two literatures (de Vries et al. 2014: 24). The lack of a common understanding of forms of IORs in the public sector, and their role throughout public sector innovation processes may severely impede organizations, policy-makers and officials from developing and implementing new ideas despite significant interest and enthusiasm. ​As integrated capability development across organizational borders have become pressing managerial challenges for public organizations, understanding the dynamics of interorganizational relationships and innovation, and the mechanisms that facilitate such processes is increasingly important (Seeman et al. 2013: 2)​. Accordingly, the objective of this paper is to clarify the relationship between IORs and public sector innovation, contributing to the lively discussion on collaborative 1 innovation in this domain (Bommert 2010; Sørensen and Torfing 2011). First, I review the literature on public sector innovation, highlighting the distinction between innovation processes and outcomes particular to government organizations. Following this I define IORs, and briefly overview the state of the art in IOR research. I then zoom in on IOR literature specific to the public sector context, focusing particularly on how scholars have classified types of relationships. From this set of literature, I analyze and clarify the role of IORs public sector innovation by presenting a model of public sector innovation. Finally, the explanatory power of the model is illustrated through a case study of the innovation process of a new joint public service, the Community Risk Intervention Teams (CRIT), an initiative by the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service (GMFRS), the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS), the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and local authorities. I conclude with relevance for scholars and practitioners, and highlight limitations and areas for future research. Theoretical Framework Public Sector Innovation The study and theory of corporate innovation is a long established domain, and there are numerous studies dating back to the seminal work of Joseph Schumpeter in the early 1900’s that seek to explain the role of innovation in economic change (see Mueller et al., 2013; Perks & Roberts, 2013; Slater et al., 2014 for reviews of this literature). Increasingly, scholars and practitioners have been interested in the role of innovation in and among public sector organizations (see Osborne & Brown, 2011; Brown & Osborne, 2013), defined here as non-market government-owned entities and corporations that are owned or controlled by government units (Lazare 2009). They have naturally turned to the established innovation literature for insights, however there is a growing consensus that the unique organizational contexts in which public sector organizations are embedded lead to a distinct character of innovation (Hartley 2005). Reflecting the relatively fledgling nature of the public sector innovation literature, definitions of what innovation means in the public sector context, and how this differs from the private sector, abound. In their systematic literature review of 158 articles and books on public sector innovation, de Vries et al. (2014) find that most (114; 72%) publications do not provide a definition of innovation at all. Of those that did, scholars used general definitions often directly based on the seminal work of Rogers (2003; 12) who defines innovation as ‘an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption’. Also based on Rogers, various authors define innovation as ‘the adoption of an existing idea for the first time by a given organization’ (e.g. Borins, 2000). In general, two different dimensions are stressed in the definitions used: the idea of (perceived) novelty, and the adoption of an idea for the first time by a given organization. Inspired by Osborne & Brown (2005) and Rogers (2003), these 2 dimensions align with the definition the authors propose at the beginning of their review: ‘the introduction of new elements into a public service - in the form of new knowledge, a new organization, and/or new management or processual skills, which represents discontinuity with the past’ (de Vries et al. 2005: 5). Their definition also highlights the importance of implementation; innovation is about generating new ideas and​ putting them into practise. Interestingly, there is little discussion about the definition of innovation as both a process and an outcome in the public sector literature (for exceptions see Hartley 2012 and Eggers and Singh 2009). The idea of innovation as a process, often conceptualized as a cycle or value chain, has long been acknowledged in the private sector innovation literature and practice (e.g. Van de Ven et al. 1999; Tidd and Bessant 2009; Rogers, 2003; Hansen and Birkinshaw 2007). While scholars concede that in practice innovation can be chaotic, emergent and unpredictable (van de Ven et al, 1999), such models prove useful as an analytical lens (Hartley 2012). Scholars have referred to a number of stages or phases in the innovation process in a variety of different ways. In this paper I refer to the general phases as outlined by Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007), similar to the model used in the public sector literature by Osborne and Brown (2005). The general phases include (i) idea generation (ii) conversion and (iii) diffusion. Six linking tasks are performed across those phases: internal,cross-unit and external collaboration; idea selection and development; and spread of developed ideas (Hansen and Birkinshaw 2007: 1; see figure 4). Figure 1. The Innovation Value Chain (Adapted from Hansen and Birkinshaw 2007). The model proposes that new ideas usually come from within the organization, from functional groups or units. The idea is then opened up to other units within the organization and then further exposed to relevant actors and organizations outside of where the idea originated, to tap into the insights and knowledge of end users, universities, entrepreneurs, investors, inventors and suppliers. ​The idea conversion phase involves two sub-processes: selection and development. In the idea conversion stage, it is about turning those ideas into a concrete change for the organization or 3 service – it is about making the idea happen and working out whether and how it needs adjustment in the shift from idea to action, and how it will fit with other organizational processes (Denis et al, 2002). Finally, once the idea is converted into a tangible outcome (new service, new product, process etc.), it needs to receive buy-in from end users and relevant stakeholder organizations to support and appropriate the new outcome across other departments or regional units. In this article, I therefore define innovation as a process through which new ideas, objects, and practices are created, developed or reinvented, which are new, or perceived as new, for the unit of adoption (Aiken and Hage 1971; Kimberly and Evanisko 1981; O’Toole 1997; Rogers 1995) and implemented in practise (Boyne et al. 2004; Damanpour and Evan 1984). According to formal definitions, only in the implementation stage of the innovation process do ideas actually become ‘innovations as outcomes’. The public sector innovation literature categorizes these ‘innovations as outcomes’ into a variety of types (see table 3), depending on the object of renewal and what is being innovated. Hartley (2005) argues that it is more helpful to conceptualise innovation dimensions rather than types, because any innovation may involve more than one feature. In practice, any particular change may have elements of more than one type of innovation. Table 1. Dimensions of public sector innovation (Adapted from Hartley 2005) Innovation Dimension Description Service innovation new ways in which services are provided to users (for example on-line tax forms). Product innovation new products (for example new instrumentation in hospitals). Process innovation new ways in which organizational processes are designed (for example administrative reorganization into frontand back-office processes; process mapping leading to new approaches). Position innovation new contexts or users (for example the Connexions service for young people). Strategic innovation new goals or purposes of the organization (for example community policing; foundation hospitals). 4 Governance innovation new forms of citizen engagement, and democratic institutions (for example area forums; devolved government). Rhetorical innovation new language and new concepts (for example the concept of congestion charging for London, or a carbon tax). As previously noted, the interconnectedness and multilayered system in which government organizations are embedded render most innovation processes inter-organizational in nature. As Scharpf argues in his seminal work on network decision-making, “It is unlikely if not impossible that public policy of any significance could result from the choice process of any single unified actor. Policy formation and policy implementation are inevitably the result of interactions among a plurality of separate actors...” (Scharpf 1978: 346). This highlights some important differences between public and private sector innovation. As innovation in the latter is driven primarily by competitive advantage, the sharing of good practice tends to be limited to strategic partners. Contrastingly, overall public sector drivers are to achieve widespread improvements in governance and service performance, so as to increase public value (Moore, 1995). Collaborative arrangements provide a medium through which public sectors organizations serving the wider public interests can create, share, transfer, adapt and embed good practice (Hartley 2005). While this may be so, and acknowledged widely in the literature, the relationship between public sector innovation and interorganizational relationships remains unclear. Thus, the public sector innovation literature could benefit greatly from incorporating IOR literature (e.g. Agranoff 2007, Milward and Provan 2006). In the following section I review the literature on IORs in the public sector, before presenting a model of the role of inter-organizational relations in public sector innovation processes. Inter-organizational Relations The study of inter-organizational relations (IOR) is concerned with inter-organizational relationships (IORs), or the relationships between and among organizations (Huxham et al. 2008: 4). Organizations can be public, business, or non-profit, while the relationships can span from dyadic (e.g. just two organizations) to multiplicitous, in the form of vast networks of many organizations (Huxham et al. 2008: 4). Broadly, IOR scholars aim to understand the character and pattern, origins, rationale, and consequences of such relationships (Huxham et al. 2008: 4). 5 Colloquially, it is not the relations between organizations that are commonly referred to, but rather the inter-organizational entities (IOEs), or the manifestations of the existence of inter-organizational relationships. These IOEs are commonly referred to in various sectors and research communities as collaborations, partnerships, alliances and networks, among others (see Table 2). Moreover, in addition to nouns used as names or labels for IOEs, many scholars and practitioners also use adjectives to describe more specific IOE manifestations such as ‘virtual project group’ or ‘joint task force’. These terms are used with multiple meanings and in various contexts, and while researchers have often provided definitions, none have become universally accepted. The intention of presenting the variety of terms is thus to simply make the reader aware of the different ways that various scholars and practitioners refer to and describe the phenomena of IORs, and manifestations thereof. Table 2. Commonly used IOR language (adapted from Huxham et al. 2008: 5). Names for inter-organizational entities an alliance a collaboration a federation a partnership an association a consortium a joint venture a relationship a cluster a constellation a network a strategic alliance a coalition a cooperation a one stop shop a zone collaborative… inter-organizational… multi-agency… trans-organizational.. cooperative… interprofessional… multi-party… virtual... coordinated… joined up… multi-organizational.. interlocking… joint… multiplex... bridging franchising working together collaboration networking contracting outsourcing cooperation partnering Descriptors for inter-organizational entities Names for inter-organizational acts The study of IOR has a long history, rooted in economics, sociology and political science (e.g. Marshall 1923; Weber 1947; Selznick 1947). Nevertheless, it was not until the development of general systems theory by von Bertalanffy (1951), and its application to a range of social science problems by Boulding (1956) and management theory by Johnson et al. (1964), that scholars grew interested in relations between organizations (Huxham et al. 2008). Evans’ (1965) seminal article introducing a ‘theory of inter-organizational relations’ acted as a tipping point for IOR research (Huxham et al. 2008: 7), leading to a flurry of scholarship from a variety of theoretical and disciplinary perspectives (e.g. management, organizational theory, organizational behaviour, economic geography, public administration, psychology, law etc.). Resultingly, in the various reviews of the literature (e.g. Van de Ven 1976, Oliver 1990, 6 Barringer and Harrison 2000, Galaskiewicz et al. 2004), scholars describe a field that grows increasingly fragmented into theoretically and disciplinary governed silos (Huxham et al. 2008: 8). In the following section I focus specifically on the development of IOR research in the public administration and political science literature. Inter-organizational Relations in the Public Sector Many policy problems transcend the capabilities of any one organization (see figure 2), motivating the development of inter-organizational structures to fill the voids in conventional organizational arrangements (Sandfort and Milward 2008: 148). A variety of inter-organizational structures have been heralded across public sectors (e.g. education, public health, social work etc.) as the way to more effectively address complex problems (Selden et al. 2006: 412). As a result, there now exist numerous forms of IORs and even more ways to describe them. Although recent years have seen growing attention to the formation of partnerships and networks to achieve policy outcomes and organize service delivery , the idea is certainly not novel (Klijn 2008: 120). Levine and White (1961), Emerson (1962), and Litwak and Hylton (1962) were among the early inter-organizational theorists who were interested in the interdependencies among organizations in the public sector context. Figure 2. The rationale for collaboration (Adapted from Hjern 1992:4) The resulting variety of scholarly and practitioner communities engaged in research on IORs in the public sector has produced a number of ways to approach the topic. At the broadest level, the literature can be divided into two distinct approaches (Sandfort and Milward 2008: 152). The first treats various types of IOEs as the main topic of interest, and as ends in and of themselves. In this line of enquiry, scholars are interested in understanding the process of the new form, the motivation behind its development, and the factors that explain its maintenance and refinement. Unlike the 7 latter approach, which treats the IOE as the dependent variable, other scholars focus on the consequences of IOEs; they are considered as a means to an end. As such, scholars interrogate the relationship between purported outcomes of these new structures and the affect they are having on a range of factors (Sandfort and Milward 2008: 152). Within these two broad research streams, scholars focus on more specific questions. Selden et al. (2006: 413) outline the major areas of enquiry: attempts to classify types of inter-organizational structures (Gray 1996, Himmelman 1996, Agranoff and McGuire 1998, Linder 2000), the factors associated with successful relationships, the motives underlying the decision to work together, and the outcomes of IORs (Foster-Fishman et al. 2001; Gray 1989; Mattessich and Monsey 1992; Mulroy and Shay 1998; O ’ Regan and Oster 2000 ; Stone 2000). In the following section I focus on the ways in which scholars have classified various forms of IORs in the public sector, before turning to the literature on public sector innovation to situate the two alongside one another. Describing Variations in Form among Inter-organizational Relations in the Public Sector As a result of the sheer variety of sectors explored, and the diversity in disciplinary approaches to the study of IORs, terminology abounds. Terms like ‘collaboration’, ‘strategic-alliances’, ‘joint ventures’ and ‘networks’ are often used interchangeably. Huxham (1996) outlines a number of other labels that are often used synonymously, such as ‘partnerships’, ‘cooperation’, ‘coordination’, ‘coalition’, ‘alliances’, ‘bridges’, client centred ‘one stop shops’, ‘joined-upness’ and ‘working seamlessly’. Moreover, Sandfort and Milward (2008: 153) summarize a number of ways in which scholars have described and differentiated interorganizational arrangements in the public sector, including by purpose (Agranoff and McGuire 1998; Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Kagan 1993), by the level at which they occur (Agranoff and Pattakos 1979; Kagan 1993; Martin ​et al. ​1983), by the intensity or degree of relations (Cigler 2001; Himmelman 1996; Kagan 1993; Mattessich ​et al. ​2001), and by stages of relationship-building (Hudson ​et al. ​1999). The following sub-section delves deeper into these various classifications. Classification of interorganizational entities in the public sector In classifying IOEs some scholars highlight the importance of differentiating by purpose, particularly in making distinctions between initiatives that attempt ‘systems’ change and those that attempt ‘service’ change (Agranoff and McGuire 1998; Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Kagan 1993). Examples of systems change include reorganizing or linking state and local government administrative entities or reorganizing local services through collocation. These macro-‘systems’ changes have the potential to create new links and decrease fragmentation. Contrastingly, more modest attempts at change include those that aim to improve services through collaboration by working around 8 and among existing systems, rather than changing the systems themselves. These more modest collaborative efforts include altering the content of services, or repackaging services as new resources become available. Table 3: Levels of Inter-organizational Collaboration Level Examples Policy Decision-making bodies, such as commissions or policy councils, that allow information to be shared, programmes to be developed, and revenues to flow beyond the traditional boundaries of categorical programs; partnerships that combine revenue streams to create new programs. Organizational The reorganization and creation of unified ‘umbrella’ agencies within government to improve the sharing of information and administration of existing programmes. Joint ventures where organizations share administrative functions. Program Client Strategies such as collocation, linking information systems, or integrated staffing that change the scope and implementation of programmes. Efforts that coordinate services for individual clients or their families and may include single application procedures or case management services. Related to classification by purpose, many scholars have conceptualized IORs at the level at which they occur (e.g. Agranoff and Pattakos 1979; Kagan 1993; Martin et al. ​1983). For example, Agranoff and Pattakos (1979), Kagan (1993), and Martin et al. (1983) distinguish four levels of IORs at the (i) policy level, (ii) organizational level, (iii) program level, and (iv) client level (see table 2). Policy and organizational level changes roughly align with the macro-system changes previously discussed, while the program and client levels present more modest collaborative efforts. Similarly, building upon the work of Agranoff and Pattakos (1979), Grepin and Reich (2008) highlight the importance of defining where collaboration is occurring: global, national/regional, local (see figure 3). In their study of inter-organizational integration in the healthcare context, they emphasize the nested layers of systems in the public sector by acknowledging that collaboration at one level will influence collaboration at other levels. Incorporating these layers of governance also implies a spatial component to inter-organizational relationships, also highlighted by Geddes (2008: 210), which is often neglected in organizational science (Sydow 2004). 9 Figure 3. Geographical layers of inter-organizational relationships (Adapted from Grepin and Reich 2008 Another approach to IOE classification is by the intensity or degree of relations (Cigler 2001; Himmelman 1996; Kagan 1993; Mattessich ​et al. ​2001), commonly visualized along a continuum (see figure 4). Scholars distinguish between cooperation at one end, characterized by informal and personal relationships, and service integration at the other, whereby two or more organizations work together to provide new services to their mutual clients. In between these extremes are coordination and collaboration. Coordination involves both organizations making an effort to calibrate actions, yet remaining independent. Collaboration entails organizations sharing existing resources, authority and rewards. Examples include staff integration, joint planning or joint budgeting. Figure 4. Continuum of collaborative service arrangements (From Sandfort and Milward 2007: 154) Finally, acknowledging that collaborative efforts are not static, various scholars try to understand IORs in the context of time and process. They do so by identifying a number of stages involved in forming IOEs in practice. Hudson et al. (1999), for example, outline ten stages that characterize the ‘collaborative endeavor’ from the practitioners’ perspective; (1) Consider contextual factors; (2) recognize the need to collaborate; (3) identify a legitimate basis for collaboration; (4) asses collaborative capacity; (5) articulate a clear collaborative purpose; (6) build trust; (7) ensure wide organizational ownership; (8) nurture fragile relationship; (9) select an appropriate 10 collaborative relationship; (10) select a pathway to create it. Admittedly, they view this linear path as overly-simplistic, and suggest a more iterative model of inter-organizational relationship formation.​ ​Other research has reaffirmed this pitfall. Huxham and Vangen (2005), for instance, argue that the dynamics of the collaborative process involve negotiating, nurturing and managing purpose, membership, trust, power, leadership and identity continually in a recursive process. Various scholars point to the importance of inter-organizational arrangements for innovation in both the public and private sector. Nevertheless, the relationship between the two is unclear. For example, in the literature some scholars see innovation as occurring ​through​ inter-organizational relationships. Similarly, others see inter-organizational collaboration as ​drivers, vehicles​ or ​catalysts ​for innovation (e.g. Bekkers et al. 2013: 20), and still yet some scholars define new forms of inter-organizational relationships as innovations in and of themselves (e.g. Green, Howells & Miles 2002). In the following section I clarify the relationship between the two by building a model of the role of inter-organizational relationships through public sector innovation processes. I then test the validity of the model through a case of a public sector innovation process. Inter-organizational relationships and public sector innovation This section delves deeper into how inter-organizational relationships evolve throughout the innovation process. To say that innovation happens through collaboration is overly simplistic. As previously described, ideas go through an ideal-type process before they are implemented and spread: idea generation, conversion and diffusion. As an idea moves from generation to action and diffusion, different inter-organizational arrangements are required. The following model illustrates how inter-organizational relationships evolve throughout this process, taking into account the various levels of government in which public sector organizations are nested. In the subsequent sub-sections I further explore the role of interorganizational relationships throughout the public sector innovation process. 11 Figure 5. The role of interorganizational relationships in public sector innovation The role of interorganizational relationships in the idea generation stage In the idea generation stage various types of inter-organizational arrangements are involved. In the private sector literature, new ideas are said to usually come from within the firm from functional groups or business units. In the case of the public sector, new ideas can come from teams and units at different levels of government: local, regional and national, as well as from organizations external from the public sector (Borins 1998). The idea is then opened up to other units within the relevant department or agency. According to the private sector model, the idea is then exposed to relevant actors and organizations outside of the firm, or even industry, to tap into the insights and knowledge of customers, end users, competitors, universities, entrepreneurs, investors, inventors and suppliers. In the case of the public sector, this pool of external stakeholders looks slightly different. Firstly, the idea that citizens are constituents and taxpayers in the political-administrative system (Svara, 2001) as well as customers/users of public services (Dunleavy & Hood, 1994; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004) is an important one. Just as end-users and customers are being integrated into private sector innovation and value creation processes in the private sector through open innovation (Chesborough 12 2003), the public sector is increasingly taking a citizen-centred approach to public sector innovation (Hilgers and Ihl 2010: 69). Secondly, inter-organizational relationships in the public sector most often occur between organizations and agencies working in the same organizational field. These sets of organizations can include solely those in the public sector, or consist of wider networks of public, private and non-governmental organizations. In the case of collaboration within the public sector, organizations and departments must work together both horizontally and at different levels of government in an “innovation milieu” (Castells 1996: 3). The types of interorganizational arrangements in the idea generation stage evolve depending on the nature of the new concept and the stakeholders relevant to its eventual implementation. Integrating the public sector literature, especially the work of Agranoff (2003), is relevant here. He distinguishes between four different types of networks: informational, development, outreach, and action. In the idea generation stage, informational networks play a prominent role; multiple units or stakeholders come together for the common purpose of sharing and exchanging information and exploring potential solutions to common problems. He also acknowledges however that networks are not the only vehicles for innovation (2006: 57): “They share a place — in many cases, a small place — alongside literally thousands of interagency agreements, grants, contracts, and even informal contacts…” As ICT and open innovation platforms become more prominent (see Terwiesch & Xu, 2008), they enable the involvement of more networked forms of idea generation. Here I argue that within the idea generation stage, the organizational arrangements are dynamic and largely informal. An idea can be generated or introduced at various levels of government and opened up to other organizations or agencies on the same level, or those above or below it. Furthermore, inter-organizational arrangements can take various forms, of which a network form is increasingly one. The important insight here is that these inter-organizational arrangements evolve for open idea sharing. In the next stage of the innovation process, idea conversion, inter-organizational arrangements become more formal and directed. The role of inter-organizational relationships in the conversion stage The idea conversion phase involves two sub-processes: selection and development. While many novel ideas are generated at various levels of government, it is not until they pass through this stage that they are truly implemented. In the idea conversion stage, it is about selecting ideas and turning them into a concrete changes – it is about making the idea happen and working out whether and how it needs adjustment in the shift from idea to action, and how it will fit with other organizational processes (Denis et al, 2002). Here I argue that a new or modified set of organizations is involved, as compared to the idea generation phase. Usually, not all members who put forth ideas are involved in the idea selection process; the decision-making power often lies with the public sector organization/s with the highest vested interest in the implementation of the idea. Once ideas are selected, they are put into action by what Agranoff (2006: 59) refers to as ‘action networks’, wherein, “partners come together to 13 make interagency adjustments, formally adopt collaborative courses of action, and deliver services, along with information exchanges and enhanced technology capability”. Again the term ‘network’ is conceptually limiting, as many interorganizational arrangements can characterize this implementation phase. It is in this stage that the various dimensions of the innovation outcome take shape in reality. Based on the idea or ideas selected, actions are taken to implement new products, services, processes, positions, strategies, governance models and/or rhetoric. Depending on the nature and complexity of the new idea, one or often a combination of the dimensions manifest in reality. For example, a new service is developed which requires a new technological platform, governance model, and rhetoric. In some cases, the introduction of a new pattern of inter-organizational relationship is a dimension of the innovation outcome. For example, a new inter-organizational task force, or virtual collaboration team. In this case inter-organizational relationships can be both a vehicle and outcome of innovation. The role of inter-organizational relationships in the diffusion stage Finally, once the idea is converted into a tangible outcome (new service, new product, process etc.), it needs to receive buy-in from end users and relevant stakeholder organizations to support and appropriate the new outcome. The diffusion of innovations (sometimes called dissemination, or spread of good or promising practices) to other organizations, localities and jurisdictions is particularly important for the public sector (Rashman and Hartley, 2002). As noted before, whereas innovation in the private sector is geared toward gaining a competitive advantage, the aim of public sector innovation is to achieve widespread improvements in governance and service performance (Hartley 2005). Thus innovations in the private sector are typically only willingly spread within the organizations in which the idea was generated, across geographically dispersed corporate locations and markets. Contrastingly, in the public sector context, innovations are spread willingly across nested localities: neighborhoods, municipalities, states or counties, regions, nations etc. through various types of inter-organizational channels. Depending on where the new idea was generated and/or implemented, this diffusion can happen horizontally, bottom-up or top-down (Borins 2002). In this stage, the organizations involved are again expanded to include a wider number of relevant stakeholder organizations, many of which may have been involved in the idea generation phase to begin with. Case Study: The Community Risk Intervention Teams In this section I evaluate the explanatory power of the proposed model of public sector innovation through a case study of the Community Risk Intervention Teams, a new public service introduced in Greater Manchester. More specifically, the objective of the case study is to understand how interorganizational relationships evolved as the new idea moved from generation to implementation and diffusion. I employ processual 14 analysis in the form of a narrative strategy, detailing how the process of innovation unfolds over time. I define a process in line with Pettigrew (1997: 338) as, “a sequence of individual and collective events, actions and activities unfolding over time and in context”. I reconstruct the innovation process and the role of interorganizational relationships throughout using empirical material gathered from government documents, reports and press releases in the time period between July 2014 to March 2015. Following a brief overview of the initiative, I outline the evolution of the idea from generation to conversion and diffusion, focusing on how inter-organizational relationships evolve along the way. Overview CRIT is the result of a joint initiative, led by the GMFRS, in collaboration with the GMP, NWAS and local authorities. The idea for CRIT was formally generated in mid-2014 to address a number of complex, interrelated community problems. These namely included growing demand for NWAS as a result of an ageing population in GM, and a greater demand for GMP, with 75% of the calls to which they responded not being crime related. The task of CRIT is twofold: (i) to deliver prevention services on behalf of all the emergency services and (ii) to respond to high volume but low priority calls on behalf of the police and ambulance service. The overall objective therefore is to reduce demand for services whilst improving quality of life outcomes for individuals and the wider community (Parry et al. 2015: 12). The following sections outline the inter-organizational relationships involved in the three main stages of innovation: (1) idea generation; (2) conversion; and (3) diffusion. Idea generation The idea for CRIT was generated within the GMFRS, building upon prevention work that the service has been involved with since the mid-1990’s (AGMA 2014). Recognizing that the fire services should offer both response and prevention services, the culture within GMFRS changed to support a risk reduction approach. Accordingly, they developed and introduced a new prevention and protection structure, necessitating the establishment of key strategic partnerships with other organizations in health and social care, substance use, community engagement, and crime and disorder. This shift to risk reduction resulted in a demand reduction for GMFRS by over 40% in the last 10 years. As other emergency services face growing demand due to demographic changes, the GMFRS sought to apply the risk reduction approach to the emergency services as a whole. More specifically, recent months had seen a major increase ambulance demand, with high volume/low priority calls. At the same time demand for Greater Manchester Police (GMP) response continues to increase; with 75% of the calls that they respond to not being crime related. At this stage the identification of various interrelated problems began to emerge, and a solution was generated to tackle it in the form of CRIT. Building upon the holistic risk reduction service offered by the GMFRS for fire-related incidents, the aim of CRIT is to carry out preventative measures to secure the homes of those community members most at risk 15 from fire, falls, carbon monoxide poisoning, crime and general detrition in health. In addition, CRITs respond to falls in the home, cardiac arrests and to calls relating to mental health issues, thus alleviating demand for the traditional response services through prevention and supportive response. The concept required the involvement of a wide range of strategic partners outlined in the July 2014 Report of the County Fire Officer & Chief Executive (O’Reilly 2014). These included: North West Ambulance Service, Greater Manchester Police, Greater Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner, GM Protect and Respond Panel, GM Directors of Public Health, GM Public Sector Reform Executive, GM Health and Wellbeing Board, GM Directors of Adult Social Services, GM Strategic Safeguarding Partnership Board, GM Association of Clinical Commissioning Groups. On 4 June 2014 GMFRS submitted an application to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Fire Transformation Fund 2015/16 to introduce 10 CRIT teams across GM. To capitalise on a number of opportunities and to maximise the support and momentum behind CRIT, Members of Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority (GMFRA) approved funding for a limited, interim pilot on 24 July 2014 for the introduction of CRIT in three boroughs; Wigan, Salford and Manchester, for a period of six months. A multi-agency board was established (see Table 3), and met for the first time on 24th September 2014. Table 3.​ ​CRIT Multi-agency Board Members Name Organization Steve Hynes NWAS David Acton (Chair) Rebekah Sutcliffe Stuart Cowley Ian Ashworth Fiona Worrall Mike Connolly Linda Fisher Mike Taylor Warren Heppolette Peter O’Reilly GM Fire and Rescue Authority GMP Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Salford City Council Manchester City Council Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Salford University Central Manchester CCG GMFRS 16 Geoff Harris GMFRS A project scoping document was drafted to be considered by board members and a plan to nominate individuals from the respective organizations to form a project steering group to oversee the further implementation of CRIT in the event that the further funding bid was successful. The following section outlines the the pilot phase, followed by the wider roll out of the teams across all 10 boroughs in Greater Manchester. Conversion The implementation of CRIT consists of a phased approach, with an interim pilot delivered in Wigan, Salford and Manchester (see Figure 6). With funding for the CRIT pilot phase approved, stakeholders, led by GMFRS had to simultaneously prove the concept while gaining support for implementation across the wider region. Figure 6. Map of Greater Manchester County1 The key delivery milestones, as outlined in the October Report of the County Fire Officer & Chief Executive (O’Reilly 2014) are as follows: ● 17th November 2014– Launch of first CRIT team in Wigan, delivering a prevention service. 1 Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Manchester_County_(2).png 17 ● 1st December 2014– Wigan CRIT team expand delivery to include response activities. ● 12th December 2014 – Launch of second CRIT team in Salford, full suite of activities. ● 5th January 2015 – Launch of third CRIT team in Manchester, full suite of activities ● April 2015 – Phased introduction of CRIT to Bury, Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford. As the teams became operational in the pilot boroughs, new operational roles, processes, equipment and training were established, procured and implemented, involving partnerships with a variety of local actors. More specifically, the introduction of CRIT involved the development of three new roles, outlined in the October 2014 Report of the County Fire Officer & Chief Executive: Team Members, Contact Center Call Handlers, and Coordinators (​O’Reilly 2014​, October). ​The Community Safety Training and Development team (CSTD) worked closely with NWAS, GMP and Local Authority partners to develop a three week training course for CRIT. According to the October 2014 CRIT Pilot Report of the County Fire Officer & Chief Executive, teams are made up of responders trained in similar ways to GMFRS’ Community Safety Advisors, NWAS’ Community First Responders, GMP officers trained in mental health response and Local Authority officers trained in mental health awareness. Custom vehicles have been procured for the CRIT (see Figure 7 from ​Greater Manchester Fire Service 2015​), with support from Leigh Technical Services, the GMFRS Procurement Team, the NWAS, and a CRIT Support Officer. The vehicles are equipped with a wide range of risk reduction equipment relating to fire, falls, carbon monoxide poisoning and distraction burglary. Vehicles also have the capacity to transport people to an urgent care facility or GP surgery, mainly aimed for urgent, but non-emergency incidents. The location of vehicles is informed by incident data provided by NWAS and the locations of A&E departments. CRIT vehicles are hosted at the Local Authority depot at Ince, for Wigan Borough, at the Agecroft fire station for Salford Borough, and the Wythenshawe fire station for Manchester Borough. Similar arrangements will be made in other Boroughs when the project is scaled. 18 Figure 7. CRIT personnel and vehicle Finally, a bespoke, electronic ‘inhouse’ system was developed to enable team members to allocate themselves to shifts on a ‘self-rostered’ basis. This was done with assistance from the Information and Communications Technology Directorate. The system allows members to book shifts 28 days in advance via the GMFRS website’s staff portal, and ensures that team members cannot book themselves on more shifts than are required. Diffusion The spread of the teams to all boroughs within Greater Manchester was incorporated into the initial regional strategic plan. However, CRIT was first launched in three boroughs and academically evaluated in cooperation with the University of Salford. I​ nformation and lessons learned were collected and compiled during this pilot phase to support the identification of the wider outcomes of CRIT and their benefit to Public Sector Reform across the region.​ In order to determine the contribution to public value by CRIT, a number of qualitative and quantitative measures are used. As the project progresses, qualitative and quantitative data is continuously collected on all CRIT activities, and is reported to all stakeholders monthly. Data is collected on both response and prevention activity, and includes which organization each call supports. Qualitative data is collected and disseminated through monthly CRIT case study reports. Outside of Greater Manchester, information about the CRIT initiative has been shared through various channels. These include best practice reports compiled by the Emergency Services Collaboration Working Group formed in September 2014 with funding from the Home Office, Department of Health and Department of Communities and Local Government. The aim of the group is to improve emergency service collaboration across England and Wales by providing strategic leadership, coordination and an overview of best practices. Members meet quarterly and include senior leaders from the emergency services at the national level. In addition to publishing reports in 19 collaboration with university researchers, the group has established a peer-to-peer knowledge network and online collaboration network. Findings The case overview of the process from idea generation to diffusion of CRIT provided an insight into the process of innovation in the public sector. While the proposed model provided a helpful analytical lens through which to study how the idea for CRIT evolved into its actual implementation, it still did not account for the iterative sub-processes that took place. Indeed, this finding is in alignment with previous scholars who find that innovation processes and the inter-organizational relationship formation are non-linear and messy (​van de Ven et al. 1999​; Osborne and Brown 2005). Moreover, many sub-processes take place simultaneously, making it difficult to delineate when one stage begins or ends. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the model takes into account the various types of inter-organizational arrangements needed throughout the non-linear process. In addition, unlike private sector models of innovation, the proposed model takes into account the multiple layers of government in which public sector organizations are embedded. In the idea generation and diffusion stages, organizations at various levels of government need to be involved. At the same time, local organizations in each respective borough needed to be engaged horizontally for the actual implementation of the teams. This means that arrangements between organizations happen simultaneously in different spatial areas manifest in various governmental levels​ (Agranoff and Pattakos 1979; Grepin and Reich 2008). Finally, the understanding that inter-organizational relations are both a vehicle and an outcome of innovation is important. For example, various informal and formal inter-organizational arrangements, such as the multi-agency board, were required to develop and hone the CRIT concept and put the people and resources in place for the initiative to manifest. The same is the case for the diffusion stage. At the same time, the new teams represent the introduction of a multi-dimensional innovation: a new inter-organizational form with a new process, new technical product combination, new rhetoric (e.g. ‘risk intervention’), all rolled up into a new service. Discussion and Conclusion The objective of this paper was to understand the role of interorganizational relationships throughout the public sector innovation process, a little explored area in the literature. I reviewed the literature on interorganizational relationships in the public administration and political science literature, as well as the fledgling public sector innovation literature to glean insights into how inter-organizational arrangements evolve throughout the public sector innovation process, and how they can also be innovations in and of themselves. From here I developed a model of public sector innovation and evaluated its explanatory power through a case study of the Community Risk 20 Intervention Teams, a new service offered by the emergency services and local government in Greater Manchester. I found that the model was helpful in taking into account the complex ‘innovation milieu’ in which public sector organizations exist, working together ​both horizontally and at different levels of government (Castells 1996: 3). Furthermore, the model is able to clarify the concept of innovation as both a process and an outcome. This means that inter-organizational arrangements are a necessary enabler for the idea generation, conversion and diffusion of new forms of inter-organizational relationships. Numerous public sector innovation scholars echo the sentiments of traditional innovation researchers in advocating the study of innovation from an ecological perspective (Brown & Duguid 2000; Greenhalgh et al. 2004; Walker 2007; Bason 2010; Osborne & Brown 2011). This entails taking into account the different governance traditions in various countries, as well as the role of politics and network characteristics (Bekkers et al. 2013: 8). Additionally, an ecological approach appreciates how innovation processes are shaped by the local, and thus contingent and institutionally embedded interactions of relevant stakeholders (Bekkers & Homburg 2007). Similarly, modern innovation theory emphasises the open nature of innovation processes (Chesborough, 2003; Von Hippel, 1976, 2005, 2007), throughout which relevant actors and organizations must be willing and able to cooperate and to link and share ideas, knowledge and experience beyond traditional organizational borders, as well as to exchange vital resources such as staff (Bekkers et al. 2013: 8). While this open and ecological perspective is highlighted in the literature, scholars struggle to take such an approach due to the lack of an appropriate lens through which to view and study innovation in the public sector. Further, while the role of inter-organizational arrangements, such as networks and clusters, is often written about in relation to innovation in both the public and private sectors, the actual relationship is rarely examined. Accordingly, this paper provides such a lens through a model of inter-organizational relationships in public sector innovation. Future research should therefore evaluate this model using more case studies of public sector innovation, refining and critiquing it if need be. For policy-makers and practitioners, this research provides a more nuanced understanding of the vague and ambiguous buzzword that is innovation. Having a deeper and more complex lens through which to view innovation enables more sophisticated management of innovation processes by public managers. 21 References Agranoff. R. (2003). Leveraging networks: A guide for public managers working across organizations. Washington. D.C.. IBM endowment for the Business of Government (March). Agranoff R, Pattakos A (1979) Dimensions of services integration: service delivery, program linkage, policy management, organizational structure. Rockville (Maryland): Department of Health Education and Welfare Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Project Share. Agranoff R. & McGuire M. (1998). Multinetwork Management: Collaboration and the Hollow State in Local Economics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(1): 67– 92. Agranoff R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review. Special Issue. Supplement to Issue 66:6. Agranoff, R.I. and McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Agranoff, Robert. 2007. Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Aiken, M. and J. Hage, 1971. The organic organization and innovation. Sociology, 5: 63-82. Barringer, B.R., and Harrison, J.S. (2000). ‘Walking a Tightrope: Creating Value Through Interorganizational Relationships’. Journal of Management, 26/3: 367-403. Bekkers, V.J.J.M. & Homburg, V.M.F. (2007). The Myths of E-Government: Looking Beyond the Assumptions of a New and Better Government. The Information Society, 23 (5), 373-382. Bekkers, V.J.J.M., Tummers, L.G., Voorberg, W.H. (2013). From public innovation to social innovation in the public sector: A literature review of relevant drivers and barriers. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam 22 Belussi, F. and Arcangeli, F. (1998) ‘A typology of networks: flexible and evolutionary firms’, Research Policy, 27, pp. 415-428. Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review, 11(1): 15-33. Borins, S. (1998), Innovating with Integrity: How Local Heroes are Transforming American Government, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC. Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 498- 507. Borins, S. (2002). “Leadership and innovation in the public sector”, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 8: 467–476. Borins, S. (ed.). (2008). Innovations in Government. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Boyne, G. A., Gould-Williams, J. S., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Toward the self-evaluating organization? An empirical test of the Wildavsky model. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 463–473. Brown, L., & Osborne, S. P. (2013). Risk and innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services. Public Management Review, 15(2), 186-208. Castells, M. (1996), The rise of the network society. Cambridge: Blackwell Chesborough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press. Cigler, B.A. (2001). ‘Multiorganizational, Multisector, and Multi-Community Organizations: Setting the Research Agenda’, in M.P. Mandell (e.d.) Getting Results through Collaboration: Networks and Network Structures for Public policy and Management. Wesport, Conn.: Quorom Books, 71-85. Crouch, C., Schrder, M., & Voelzkow, H. (2009) Regional and sectoral varieties of capitalism, Economy and Society, 38:4, 654-678, DOI: 10.1080/03085140903190383 23 Damanpour, F., Evan, W.M., 1984. Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of ‘‘Organizational Lag’’. Administrative Science Quarterly 29, 392–409. De Vries, H.A., Bekkers, V.J.J.M., Tummers, L.G. (2014). Innovations in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda. Ottawa: IRSPM conference Denis JL, Hebert Y, Langley A, Lozeau D, Trottier LH. Explaining Diffusion Patterns for Complex Health Care Innovations. Health Care Management Review. 2002;27(3):60–73. Dunleavy , P. and C. Hood . 1994 . ‘ From Old Public Administration to New Public Management ’ , Public Money and Management , 14 (3), pp. 9 - 16. Eggers, B. and S. Singh. 2009. The Public Innovators Playbook. Washington, D.C.: Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Emergency Service Collaboration Working Group. (2015). Emergency Services Collaboration, The Current Picture (An overview of collaboration in England and Wales) http://publicservicetransformation.org/images/Emergency_Services_Collaborati on_2014.pdf Emerson, R.M. (1962). ‘Power Dependence Relations’. American Sociological Review, 27: 31-40. Evan, W.M. (1965). ‘Towards a Theory of Interorganizational Relations’. Management Science, 11:217-30. Foster-Fishman, P.G., Berkowitz, S.L., Lounsbury, D.W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N.A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–261. Freeman, C. (1995) The ”National System of Innovation” in Historical Perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics. Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). ‘Inter-organizational Relations’. Annual Review of Sociology, 11: 281-304. 24 Geddes, A. (2008). Immigration and European Integration: Beyond Fortress Europe? (2nd edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gray, B. (1996). ‘Cross-Sectoral Partners: Collaborative Alliances among Business, Government and Communities,’ in C. Huxham (ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage Publications. Greater Manchester Fire Service. (2015). Greater Manchester Community Risk Intervention February Case Study Report. http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/media/2408/crit-case-studies-feb-2015.pdf Green, L.; Howells, J. and Miles, I. (2002) Services and innovation: dynamics of service innovation in the European Union. Paper presented at the 12th International RESER Conference, Manchester, September 2002. Grépin KA, Reich MR (2008) Conceptualizing Integration: A Framework for Analysis Applied to Neglected Tropical Disease Control Partnerships. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2(4): e174. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000174 Hansen, M.T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2007). The Innovation Value Chain. Harvard Business Review, June, p. 121-130, 2007. Hartley, J. (2005), Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present, in: Public Money & Management, 25(1); 27-34. Hartley, J. (2011). Public value through innovation and improvement. In J. Benington & M. Moore (Eds.), Public value: Theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave. (pp 171-184). Hartley, J. (2012). The Creation of Public Value through step-change innovation in public organizations. Draft paper prepared for Creating Public Value Conference, University of Minnesota, Sept 20-22. Hilgers, D. and Ihl, C. (2010), Citizensourcing - Applying the Concept of Open Innovation to the Public Sector, International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2) Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan. 2010, S. 67-88. 25 Himmelman, A.T. (1996). ‘On the Theory and Practice of Transformational Collaboration: From Social Service to Social Justice’, in C. Huxham (ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage Publications. Hudson, B., Hardy, B., Henwood, M., Wistow, G. (1999). ‘In Pursuit of Inter-agency Collaboration in the Public Sector: What is the Contribution of Theory and Research?’ Public Management (UK), ½: 235-60. Huxham, C. (ed.) (1996). Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage Publications. Johnson, R.A., Kast, F.E. and Rozenweig, J.E. (1964). ‘Systems Theory and Management’. Management Science, 10/2:367-85. Huxham, C., Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Smith Ring, P., Cropper, S. (Ed.), Ebers, M. (Ed.), ... Smith Ring, P. (Ed.) (2008).Introducing inter-organizational relations. In ​The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations.​ (pp. 3-21). Oxford.​10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199282944.003.0001 Kagan, S.L. (1991). United We Stand: Collaboration for Child Care and Early Education Services. New York: Teachers College Press. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689-713. Klijn, E.H. (2008). Networks as perspective on policy and implementation in: S.Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, P. Ring (2008), Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press pp: 118-146. Levine, S., and White, P.E. (1961). ‘Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5: 583-601. Linder, S. (2000). ‘Coming to Terms to the Public-Private Partnership: A Grammar of Multiple Meanings,’ in P. Rosenau (ed.), Public-Private Policy Partnerships. Westwood, Mass.: MIT. 26 Litwak, E. and Hylton, L.F. (1962). ‘Interorganizational Analysis: A Hypothesis on Coordinating Agencies’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6/4: 395-420. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1985) ‘Product innovation and user-producer interaction, industrial development’, Research Series 31, Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Marshall, A. (1923/1970). ‘Industry and Trade’. New York: Kelley; 1st pub. 1923. Martin, P., Chackerian, R. Imershein, A. and Frumkin, M. (1983). ‘The Concept of “Integrated” Services Reconsidered’. Social Science Quarterly, 64/41119: 747-63 Mattessich, P., and Monsey, B. (2001). Collaboration: What Makes it Work. St Paul, Minn.: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. Milward, H. B., and Provan, K. (2006). ‘A Managers Guide for Choosing and Using Networks’. Washington: The Center for the Business of Government. Moore, M. (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic management in government, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Mueller, V., Rosenbusch, N., & Bausch, A. (2013). Success Patterns of Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation A Meta-Analysis of the Influence of Institutional Factors. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1606-1636. Mulroy, E., and Shay, S. (1998). ‘Motivation and Reward in Nonprofit Inter-organizational Collaboration in Low-Income Neighbourhoods.’ Administration in Social Work, 22/41137: 1-17. O'Regan, K.M., and S.M. Oster, 2000, “Nonprofit and For-Profit Partnerships: Rationale and Challenges of Cross-Sector Contracting”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1):120-140. Oliver, C. (1990). ‘The Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future Directions.’ Academy of Management Review, 16: 241-65. Osborne, S. & K. Brown (2005), Managing change and innovation in public service organizations. London: Routledge. 27 Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king? Public Administration, 89(4), 1335-1350. O’Reilly, P. (July, 2014). Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority Policy Standing Sub-committee. Community Risk Intervention Team Pilot Report of the County Fire Officer & Chief Executive. http://authority.manchesterfire.gov.uk/documents/s50002549/141%2024%2007 %2014%20Community%20Risk%20Intervention%20Team%20Pilot%20Policy %20Standing%20Subv3.pdf O’Reilly, P. (October, 2014). Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority Policy Standing Sub-committee. Community Risk Intervention Team Pilot Report of the County Fire Officer & Chief Executive. http://authority.manchesterfire.gov.uk/documents/s50002852/142.16.11.14.Co mmunity%20Risk%20Intervention%20Team%20Pilot.pdf O’Toole, L. J. 1997. Implementing public innovations in network settings. Administration and Society, 29(2): 115-38. Parry, J., Kane, E., Martin, D., Bandyopadhyay, S. (2015). Research into Emergency Services Collaboration. http://publicservicetransformation.org/images/articles/news/EmergencyServices CollabResearch.pdf Perks, H. and Roberts, D. (2013). A Review of Longitudinal Research in the Product Innovation Field, with Discussion of Utility and Conduct of Sequence Analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(6), 1099–1111. Pettigrew, A. (1997) “What is a Processual Analysis?” , Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies Vol 13, No. 4, pp.,331-503. Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. (2002). Leading and learning? Knowledge transfer in the Beacon Council Scheme. Public Administration, 80, 523–543 28 Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press; 1995. Rogers, E. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press (5th ed.) Sandfort, J.R. and Milward, H.B. 2008. “​Collaborative Service Provision in the Public Sector​,” ​Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations​, edited by Steve Cropper, Mark Ebers, Chris Huxham, and Peter Smith Ring, Oxford University Press, 147-174. Svara, J.H. (2001) The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Public Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration, Public Administration Review, 61, 2, pp. 176-183 Scharpf, F.W. (1978) Interorganizational Policy Studies: Issues, Concepts and Perspectives, in: K.I. Hanf and F.W. Scharpf (eds.): 345-370. Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Seemann, J. Dinesen, B., Gustaffson J. (2013). Interorganizational Innovation in Systemic Networks: TELEKAT Findings. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 18(3), article 5. Selden, S.C., Sowa, J.E., and Sandfort, J. (2006). ‘The Impact of Nonprofit Collaboration in Early Child Care and Education and on Management and Program Outcomes.’ Public Administration Review, 66/3: 412-25. Selznick, P. (1947). ‘TVA and the Grass Roots’. Berkeley: The University of California Press. Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J. and Sengupta, S. (2014). Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature Review, Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 552–556. Stone, M. M. 2000. “Exploring the effects of collaborations on member organizations: Washington County’s Welfare to Work Partnership.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 29(1). 98-119. 29 Sydow, J. (2004). ‘Network Development by Means of Network Evaluation? Explorative Insights from a Case in the Financial Service Industry.’ Human Relations, 57: 201-20. Sörensen, E. & J. Torfing (2011), Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector, in: Administration & Society, 43(8); 842-868. Terwiesch, C., Y. Xu. 2008. Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Sci. 54(9) 1529-1543. Van de Ven, A., Andrew, H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press. Van de Ven, A.H. (1976). ‘On the Nature, Formation, and Maintenance of Relationships among Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1: 24-36. von Bertalanffy, L. (1951). ‘General Systems Theory: A New Approach to Unity of Science’. Human Biology, 23: 303-61. Walker, R. M., Damanpour, F., & Devece, C. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2). Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 2000, 7:225-246. 30