Aelita Skaržauskienė, Steponas Jonušauskas and Monika Skaržauskaitė
development. Although the concept of innovation is usually linked to the scientific and technological dimensions, there is a large consensus that innovation is a complex process that cannot be reduced to the technological side( Romero, 2010). New ideas have proposed new ways to interpret this process. One of them suggests that the innovation paradigm is changing from the closed innovation model to an open innovation model( Chesbrough, 2003). Pursuing this tendency, the Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development, OECD( http:// www. oecd. org / about /) has broadened the innovation concept to cover also nontechnological innovation( OECD, 2005). Organizational innovation involves a customary dimension specific to the institution, implying change in the organization, and it is more related to structure, practices, arrangements, organizational beliefs, rules and norms, than to its technical aspects( Pettigrew and Fenton, 2000; Edquist et al., 2001, Romero, 2012). A revision of the innovation dimensions, both for technological and nontechnological, was proposed by Hollanders and Cruysen( 2008). According to the author`s suggestion, five innovation dimensions could be defined,“ two of which reflect innovation outputs( applications and intellectual property) and three of which reflect innovation inputs( innovation drivers, knowledge creation and innovation and entrepreneurship)”. Hollanders and Cruysen( 2008) also have introduced a new category defined as throughput indicators. These indicators measure knowledge diffusion, including collaboration between organisations and other several actors, also new organizational arrangements. Archibugi, Denni, Filippetti( 2009) argue that it is quite relevant to take into consideration where does innovation takes place, including the the specific sectoral structure and the socio‐economic environment where it occurs. However,“ these dimensions do not cover appropriately non‐technological or non‐R & D innovation, such as organizational and marketing innovation, so called innovative management practices or innovative activities”( Romero, 2010). Analysis of“ the determinants of non‐technological innovation and comparisons with those of technological innovation”, have been performed by Schmidt and Rammer( 2006). The research concludes that the determinants of technological and non‐technological innovation are quite similar. Actually, organisations have a propensity to innovate in every form if their tangible and intangible assets( e. g., human capital and financial resources) are high. Common aspects between the factors of technological and non‐technological innovation are connected also with the share of highly qualified labour and the size of the company. In this research paper the authors focus on nontechnological innovations in public administration and define them as innovative activities. Consequently, „ innovation can be defined as a process that provides added value and a degree of novelty to the organisation and its suppliers and customers through the development of new procedures, solutions, products and services“( McFadzean et al, 2005).
3. Innovative activities in public administration
Innovative activities in e‐Government field are essentially important for the modernization of public administration, by raising the quality of electronic public services and user satisfaction.“ Traditionally e‐ Government refers to the use by government agencies of information technologies( such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing) that have the ability to transform relations with citizens, businesses, and other arms of government. These technologies can serve a variety of different ends”( Petrauskas, Augsutinaitis, 2011, Civilka, 2012). But it seems insufficient to move public services into electronic environment only, the development of e‐Government requires innovations that increase the efficiency and user satisfaction of electronic public services, paying special attention to services delivered across borders. Innovative governments are moving away from specialized agencies and discrete services toward more streamlined, citizen‐centric processes that focus on optimizing the user experience( McKinsey Center for Government, 2012). Examples include facilities that cater to a wide range of citizen`s needs by housing the customer‐service divisions of multiple agencies, e‐Government portals that allow citizens to access data and services online instead of at a physical location, and mobile applications. Innovative governments are encouraging citizens to help shape ideas and priorities for public services. Some agencies are crowd‐sourcing the development of new ideas, while others are gathering user feedback in the early stages of policy development. Citizens, private companies, and civil society are playing an increasingly important role in executing public policies and services, becoming“ delivery partners” to the government( for example, via open data portals that enable citizens to monitor government performance and develop new applications for public use). Based on insights from ongoing research on e‐Government on a number of trends in innovative activities could be identified( Capgemini, 2007, Noble, Lehmann, 2000, McKinsey Center for Government, 2012):
• better delivery of government services to citizens, providing simpler processes and greater convenience;
• improved interactions with business and industry;
• citizen empowerment through access to information;
474