Fuglsang 2010

BRICOLAGE AND INVISIBLE INNOVATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE
INNOVATION
Lars Fuglsang
De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »
2010/1 n° 5 | pages 67 à 87
Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2010-1-page-67.htm
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pour citer cet article :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lars Fuglsang, « Bricolage and invisible innovation in public service innovation »,
Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2010/1 (n° 5), p. 67-87.

DOI 10.3917/jie.005.0067
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.
La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les
limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la
licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie,
sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de
l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage
dans une base de données est également interdit.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

BRICOLAGE AND INVISIBLE
INNOVATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE
INNOVATION
Lars FUGLSANG
CBIT, Roskilde University, Denmark
fuglsang@ruc.dk

Innovation is a difficult phenomenon to define and study and there is no
consensus about how to define innovation. A literature exists that tries to
pin down how innovation can be defined (see among others OECD, 2005;
Drejer 2004). Even if “there is no widely accepted or common definition of
what counts as ‘innovation’” (National Audit Office, 2006b: 4), there is

agreement that innovation consists of two related activities, namely 1) doing
something new, and 2) developing this new to work in a given context.
Usually, innovation is characterized as something which is more compre-
hensive than creativity or invention. Drejer (2004) holds that, in the
Schumpeterian tradition, “the economic impact factor” must be included in
the definition of innovation. This means that we cannot speak of innova-
tion unless the invented new phenomenon obtains economic impact. Inno-
vation is not just about creating something new, but also about developing
this new so that it becomes implemented in an organization or accepted at
the market or in society. In other words, to count as innovation, an inven-
tion must have more than one application (Drejer, 2004; for similar defini-
tions see also Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter, 1996; Mulgan and Albury, 2003;
Sundbo, 1998).
This paper holds that innovation, including innovation in services and
public services, must “involve some element that can be repeated in new sit-
uations” (Toivonen et al. 2007: 369). Otherwise it cannot in any meaningful
way be characterized as innovation. How this repetition factor can be theo-
rized is more debatable, however: According to Drejer, innovation should be
DOI: 10.3917/jie.005.0067
distinguished from “infinitesimal movements” and innovation must instead be

seen as “abrupt changes that are associated with development” (Drejer: 557).
But in the service innovation literature it has been claimed that small adjust-
ment in relation to particular customers can also be counted as innovation,
n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 67

Lars FUGLSANG
so-called “ad hoc innovations” (Gallouj and Weinstein, 1997). Drejer (ibid.)
argues that this amounts “to equalising learning, competence development
and knowledge codification with innovation”. But one answer to this is that
“it is innovation characterised by degree of indirect reproducibility” (cf.
Gallouj and Windrum, 2009: 144). Ad hoc innovations are changes that
lead to the building of new competencies which become an integral part of
a service and will change a service indirectly.
Another debatable issue is how innovation can be differentiated from
change. In order to differentiate innovation from the broader concept of
change, innovation is sometimes seen as intentional. It is “deliberate changes
in behaviour with a specific objective in mind”, according to a European
project on public innovation called PUBLIN (Koch et al., 2005: 1). Changes
that occur in a more unconscious or indirect way do not count as innova-

tion, according to this definition. But the problem with this definition is
that many innovations have a random or emergent character: they become
defined and understood only as they develop.
In this paper, repetition and impact are seen as key preconditions for speak-
ing of innovation in services and public services. The core of innovation is the
work that goes into the implementation, diffusion, replication or dissemina-
tion of an invention. But it is questioned whether abruptness (radical innova-
tion) and intentionality are relevant criteria in the study of (public) service
innovation. Instead, it is stressed that innovation in public sector services
should be seen in light of processes of building of skills and expanding routines.
Several attempts have been made recently to examine change processes
and innovation in the public sector (see for example Rogers and Kim, 1985;
Koch and Hauknes, 2005; Koch et al., 2005; Mulgan and Albury, 2003; Hartley,
2005; Bessant, 2005; Young Foundation, 2006; Veenswijk, 2005; Bekkers et al.,
2006; Becheikh et al., 2007; Windrum, 2008; Fuglsang, 2008).
Much of this literature studies innovation as intentional or imposed and
radical: Innovations start as policies or reforms which are negotiated among
politicians and senior managers (see for example National Audit Office 2006a,
2006b). Radical innovations which could be called policy innovations or
systemic innovations (Windrum, 2008), such as New Public Management
(NPM), as well as the impact of these innovations on public sector develop-
ment, tend to be stressed. The reason for this is obvious: politicians and senior
managers have formal power and often public legitimacy to change the public
sector. Change is development, implementation and diffusion of their ideas
and intentions.
Nevertheless, the present paper is an attempt to argue for a process-based
and intrinsic perspective on innovation in order to capture better what goes
on in public sector services and how innovation becomes socially sustained.
68 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5

Bricolage and invisible innovation in public service innovation
The paper first examines different research perspectives on public service

development in order to better distinguish a process- and practice-based
approach to innovation from other research perspectives. It then seeks to
demonstrate through a case-study firstly how innovation can be seen as a core
activity in the given public service, and, secondly, that a process approach
with a particular view to bricolage is highly relevant for understanding public
service innovation.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
To distinguish a process- and practice-based approach to innovation from
other research traditions of public sector development, five research per-
spectives can briefly be distinguished. While the three first tend to deal with

development in a broad sense and pay attention to imposed changes and
innovations, the last two imply a more endogenous and interactive under-
standing of innovation that include both imposed and intrinsically moti-
vated innovations.
1. Public administration. First there is the public-administration litera-

ture where focus is on new policy initiatives in public administration and the
role of New Public Management in particular (for an overview see e.g. Hood,
1991; Pollitt, 2003; Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004; Dunleavy et al., 2006). The
underlying rationale behind this approach comes from public choice theory
(Niskanen 1971) and principal agent theory in which the central problem is
policy control with public sector servants who are believed to maximise bud-
gets. This literature assesses a series of organizational and systemic innova-
tions such as the use of new management styles and new organizational forms
in public services many of which are seen as imported from the private sector.
This literature is mostly focused on incentives for increased efficiency in the
public sector. A main idea which is investigated is that the public sector can
increase efficiency and productivity by applying private sector principles of
organisation leading to disaggregation of public hierarchies, marketization
and incentivization (Dunleavy et al., 2006). Some commentators, such as
Dunleavy et al., argue that these initiatives seem to be on the retreat or that
they are at least being reformulated. Reasons for this are that NPM does not
seem to deliver what it promises and that new holistic values are introduced.
For example, when the public sector is disaggregated into smaller units, it
tends to become more disintegrated and fragmented (see also Bogason, 2001).
Furthermore, the employees who are supposed to sustain development and
change are subsumed to time-consuming regimes of measurement and
accountability. New information and communication technologies, by con-
trast, enable more holistic approaches to public service management.

Lars FUGLSANG
2. New institutionalism. A literature also exists that seeks to understand

and explain these changes as institutionalisation processes that could lead to
a decoupling of concrete practices from policies (starting with Meyer and
Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Røvik, 1998). This literature is
analyzing how organizations change by responding to changing environ-
ments. Organizations change by responding to organizational fields in which
discourses of change are negotiated – for example discourses of NPM. Organ-
isations must adapt to, and adopt, these changing structures, not because they
are proven to lead to better or more efficient management, but in order for
their activities to remain legitimate. But as a consequence, organisations
may sometimes pretend that they adapt to changing structures. They will do
some “face-work” (Goffman, 1959) to create the impression that they live up
to external requirements and policies. This may lead to a decoupling of real

activities from policies. In this tradition, change is seen as intertwined with
external policy negotiations. This literature tries to explain mechanisms of
adaptation in public organizations to see how these external discourses work
in practice rather than it explains innovation as a distinct activity.
3. Competition state. Partly related to, but also distinct from, this tradi-
tion are notions such as the “competition state” (i.e. Cerny, 1995, 2008;
Kirby, 2002, 2004), the “post-welfare contracting state” (Cerny and Evans
2004), the “schumpeterian workfare state” (Jessop, 2002), intrusive “hyper-
innovation” of the new state (Moran, 2003) or reinventing government
(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) (see also Cerny, 2008). This literature explains
in different ways how the welfare state is being transformed into a competi-
tion state. The reason for this is globalization and growing competition
between states. Public institutions are also drawn into this new logic of com-
petition. This enables them to be competitive in comparison with similar
institutions in other countries (for example in health and education). In this
case, therefore, global competition and economic impact rather that public
choice theory or principal-agent problems becomes the rationale for reform
and development. For example, public institutions in education must prepare
the workforce for future competition. In this process, the borderlines between
private and public goods are blurred, many specific assets of the public sector
are turned into general private assets, and the state is reorganized from a civil
association to become a kind of social enterprise (Cerny, 1995).
While the above three traditions tend to stress the existence of a policy-
directed pressure for change to which organizations adapt (for a review of
adaptation approaches see also Hannan and Freeman, 1989), there are other
theories of innovation and change that more stress interactions, networks,
and citizen-orientation. In these understandings, there appear to be more
emphasis on action and interaction than on policy and planning. Innova-

tion is a result of intrinsic problem-solving activities rather than of imposed

policy ideas, plans and pressures.
4. Social and public entrepreneurship. There is firstly an emerging tradi-
tion inspired by entrepreneurship theory concerned with social and public
entrepreneurship (see for example Swedberg, 2000; Steyaert and Hjorth
2006; Garud et al., 2007). This literature comes close to understanding pub-
lic change in terms of “innovation”, hence with a focus on the development
of specific inventions that achieve an impact on development. In this liter-
ature, focus is on explaining various new forms of entrepreneurship in con-
temporary society, including the public sector and public entrepreneurship.
The entrepreneur is a special type of person that drives innovation. This
type may be under way to become more appreciated in public sector institu-
tions (Fuglsang, 2008). The distinction between the conventional entrepre-

neur and the public and social entrepreneur implies that the first is driven by
the impact of innovation on economic development and the second and
third by the impact on social and public sector development.
5. Innovation theory. Secondly, neo-Schumpeterian innovation theory
has also lately paid attention to public sector innovation (Nelson and Winter,
1977; Koch et al., 2005; Mulgan and Albury, 2003; Bessant, 2005; Windrum,
2008). In this research tradition, innovation is seen as a more distinct activ-
ity, and different types and forms of innovation are investigated (product,
process, organizational and so on). Furthermore, this tradition tends to stress
both internal and external drivers of change in complex interactions.
Related approaches are the dynamic capabilities approach or the resource
based approach, which could also be applied to the public sector. Here,
resources for innovation are seen as idiosyncratic and heterogeneous (for a
review see Ahuja and Katila, 2004) and therefore they are difficult to plan
and control. The uncertainties and interactivities of innovation are also
emphasized in actor-network theories. Stabilization of innovations in actor-
networks is understood as an unfolding, uncertain, and heterogeneous pro-
cess which will have to be continuously negotiated and redefined (see
among others Callon, 1986; Latour, 2005).
Table 1 – Literatures on public sector development and innovation
Public New Competition Social and public Innovation
administration institutionalism state entrepreneurship theory
Emphasis on Emphasis on Development and Emphasis on micro Innovation as an

policy imposed negotiation in orga- innovation is pro- level and intrinsic uncertain activity
reforms and their nizational fields, and moted in all sectors of motivation, including that builds on
interaction with adaptation and society, including the the spirit and heterogeneous
public legitimacy of public sector, to motivations of resources in
administration. organizations. ensure national entrepreneurs. interactive
competitiveness. processes.

Lars FUGLSANG
In this paper it is illustrated how the latter two approaches to innovation

implying a more intrinsic understanding of innovation can apply to public
service innovation. The starting point is that innovation emerges from
interactive processes that also include policy. In innovation theory, these are
often understood and researched at a systems level paying attention to
macro-systems of interaction such as the national system of innovation. But
this approach could also pay more attention to the micro level. There is a
challenge in linking the micro and systems level (Smits and den Hertog,
2007) in order to analyze how actors are involved in and processing innova-
tion in relation to socially sustained learning processes and practices.
This focus on practice as a driver of innovation especially as for its day-
to-day replication and its impact on development is a big challenge already
at the theoretical level. Some help could be obtained from recent attempts

in organizational studies (including here actor-network theory) to introduce
a process view (for a discussion, see Hernes and Weik, 2007; Hernes, 2008).
In the process view, the research focus is how “entities” become what they
are by means of “processes” (Hernes and Weik, 2007, p. 253). Policies and
plans must be seen in retrospect because they emerge in and are constituted
through an unfolding practice. In this perspective, innovation must be seen
as an emergent phenomenon which must be constituted by a practice in
order to achieve impact. Innovations emerge out of practices that constitute
them as reproduced, replicated entities. While in this perspective innova-
tions are still seen as anticipated in a broad sense, innovations are not inten-
tional in the narrow sense of being derived from policies and plans. Rather,
they must be seen as continuously constituted in an evolving practice where
problems are uncovered and responded to. This also implies that they are
understood as intrinsic phenomena rather than as imposed by external poli-
cies and plans. This view is important both because this approach may
reveal innovation activities that are otherwise unaccounted for in surveys
and so on, and because it accounts for the mechanism of replication which
– paradoxically– seems so critical to the concept of innovation.
INNOVATION AS BRICOLAGE
As mentioned, innovation is usually defined as consisting of two intertwined
activities: 1) inventing or identifying something new, and 2) developing this
new so that it becomes accepted in an organisation, on the market, or in
society (cf. e.g. National Audit Office, 2006a). This “new” can be a product,
a process, a service, a concept, an organizational innovation, a policy, a sys-
tem and much more (see e.g. Windrum, 2008). To count as innovation it
must be replicated and have impact on development. This definition is rel-

evant also to the present paper. It is important to stress that innovation is

not the same as creativity or invention. Innovation includes activities such
as implementation, diffusion, replication, and gaining economic and social
importance for an invented element.
One important discussion is how this replication should be theorized, as
plan or as practice. To differentiate innovation from change, innovation is
sometimes understood as an “intentional change” as compared to uninten-
tional changes that are not understood as innovation. Koch et al. (2005)
have applied this distinction in a EU project called PUBLIN on public inno-
vation (http://www.step.no/publin/):
“Hence we define innovation as deliberate changes in behaviour with a specific objective in
mind” (Koch et al., 2005: 1).
In this approach innovation and replication is a result of someone’s inten-

tion, plan, idea, policy etc. which come prior to innovation. This definition
does not imply, however, that the result of the innovation is identical with
the initial intentions and plans. Fragmentations, flaws, inconsistencies and
unexpected events may appear during innovation. Still, this approach stresses
innovation as a conscious and purposeful activity where the main idea and
problem is understood and pursued from the beginning by entrepreneurial
people with strong willpowers.
Empirical research especially in services suggests, however, that innova-
tion and replication is not always a planned and intentional activity in rela-
tion to an understood problem. Sometimes it can better be understood as an
emergent process and practice. Toivonen, Touminen and Brax (2007) have
identified three types of innovations in case studies: The model of separate
planning stage (where innovation is planned in advance), the model of rapid
application (a kind of trial and error model of innovation where prototype
innovations are tried out and adjusted in practice) and the model of a poste-
riory recognition of innovation (an unintentional mode of innovation
where innovations that work in practice are recognised only in retrospect).
The second and the third are not intentional in the sense of Koch et al.
(2005). They represent more experimental, heterogeneous and emerging
attempts to respond to problems and cues in a given context and gain impor-
tance and replicability for invented elements. Innovation is therefore not
always an activity which starts with an intention in this narrow sense. Gal-
louj and Weinstein (1997:549) define ad hoc innovation in the following way:
Ad hoc innovation can be defined in general terms as the interactive (social) construction of
a solution to a particular problem posed by a given client. It is a very important form of inno-
vation in consultancy services, where the available knowledge and experience accumulated
over time are harnessed and put to work synergistically to create fresh solutions and new
knowledge that changes the client’s situation in a positive and original way.

Lars FUGLSANG
Ad hoc adjustments become innovations because they gradually change

the overall competence characteristics of a provider over time, which then
come to gain social and economic importance and have impact on develop-
ment. Innovations that start as small intrinsic and interactive adjustments
lead to the exercise of new practices and routines.
In practice-based studies (see eg. Schatzki et al., 2001; Nicolini et al., 2003;
Gherardi 2005), similar endogenous understandings and definitions of change-
processes can be found. A practice is not seen as a complete and controlled
action but it is full of particularities, flaws and deficiencies which implies
that it continuously must be clarified and redefined through retrospective
sensemaking processes (Weick, 1995). There will be something “between the
lines” which the participants in a practise cannot fully control and capture
beforehand – which requires clarifications and interventions here and now.

Different concepts have been used to characterize this phenomenon (see
also Styhre 2009), for example ”tinkering” (Timmermans and Berg, 1997),
”bricolage” (Lévi-Strauss, 1966), coping with ”unforseen events”, ”the et cet-
era clause” (Garfinkel, 1967) or ”incomplete information”. This paper uses
the concept of bricolage. This concept was originally developed by Claude

Levi-Strauss (1966) in order to conceptualize practical aspects of mythical
thought. Levi-Strauss makes a distinction between scientist and bricoleur:
“The scientist creating events (changing the world) by means of structures
and the ‘bricoleur’ creating structures by means of events” (p. 22). The bri-
colour is someone that develops structures or practices from singular events.
Timmernans and Berg (1997) define tinkering in the following way: as a
“leeway to adjust the protocol to unforeseen events” (quoted from Styhre
2009). Tinkering is not just a unique event, but an adjustment of protocol,
i.e. “creation of structure”. This definition can also be used for bricolage.
Tinkering (or bricolage) is intrinsic actions that open the space for new ways
of doing things. Tinkering and bricolage requires experience inside a prac-
tice, a “lived experience” (Schütz, 1967) to be successful, according to this
approach.
The concept of the bricoleur as someone “adjusting the protocol to unfore-
seen events” and “creating structures by means of events” can be of central
relevance as a way to understand how many types of companies and institu-
tions cope with innovation in an intrinsic and repeated way. But it seems
particularly relevant to the study of services where the encounter between
the provider and the consumer is so important. Hartley (2005) point to sim-
ilar needs to see public service innovation as intrinsically constituted. She
makes a distinction between three competing paradigms of governance and
public management that she calls: 1) traditional public administration (over-

lapping with new institutionalism in Table 1); 2) new public management

(overlapping with public administration and competition state in Table 1);
and 3) networked governance or citizen-centred governance (overlapping
with entrepreneurship and innovation theory in Table 1). The first consti-
tutes a stable homogeneous environment in which needs are defined by pro-
fessionals and innovations are large-scale and universal. The second is more
competitive and atomized in which needs are expressed through the market
and innovations concern organizational changes. The third is a continu-
ously changing and diverse organization in which needs are seen as complex
and volatile, and where innovation takes place both at the central and the
local level. In the networked or citizen-centred governance model, accord-
ing to Hartley, public managers are explorers rather than clerks and citizens
are co-producers rather than clients. In this approach, innovations are

barely radical or intentional in the conventional sense, but they are emer-
gent phenomena. The concept of bricolage would be relevant as a way to
conceptualize how this can happen and how it can be stabilised and repli-
cated, hence as “adjusting the protocol to unforeseen events” and “creating
structures by means of events” in a repeated way.

The research question for the present paper is therefore: How is bricolage
as a form of innovation part of the overall development of public institu-
tions? What role does this form of innovation have compared with innova-
tion in a more intentional sense? How is public innovation organized with
elements that in the practice-based literature go under names like ”tinkering”,
”bricolage”, ”unforseen events”, ”the et cetera clause”, ”incomplete informa-
tion” etc?
INNOVATION IN ELDERLY CARE
Method
In the following section, an attempt is made to illustrate how innovation is
organized in public sector services and how the concept of bricolage can be
used to understand innovation in a public service institution.
In a research project 1 a small case-analysis of innovation was carried out
in elderly care in a town district of Copenhagen (in the following just called
the case). Interviews were made with three home carers, one home nurse,
two officers in charge of approving elderly for home care, one physiothera-
1. The ICE-project (http://www.ice-project.dk/), Roskilde University, financed by the Danish Stra-

tegic Research Council.

Lars FUGLSANG
pist, two clerical employees and three top-managers in charge of elderly care.
They were asked about how management, employees and clients are
involved in innovation and how innovations can emerge from encounters
among employees and clients.
The investigation reveals that innovation takes place in at least three
different ways: 1) As an intentional top-management initiated abstract
interest-creating and employee-involving activity around a new idea (for
example a new health care centre that has to be created). 2) As a manage-
ment mediated problem driven formalising activity around concrete prob-
lem-solutions (for example a new way to shop for the elderly or an elderly-
men get-together). 3) As bricolage and ad hoc innovation (services are con-
tinuously adjusted in relation to clients leading to an expansion of routines).
In the following these three approaches will be further explored and it will

be discussed what role they have in elderly care in the case.
Innovation as intentional top-management

initiated abstract interest-creating activity
Innovation understood as an intentional implementation of new ideas is a

concept which is relatively easily translated into concrete activities in eld-
erly care at the management level, where innovation comes in the form of
management-driven innovation.
Management-driven innovations respond to imposed policy ideas and
demands. They are interpretations of how these demands can be met. They
begin as abstract ideas that have to be made more concrete. For this to be
done, key personnel must be made interested and involved in these ideas.
The new ideas have to be translated into something useful in relation to the
relevant personnel groups. In this way, innovation is an intentional activity
of which the rationale is to gain importance for a new concept or a new way
to organise work and thereby altogether improve the service.
Management describes this kind of innovation as a process which has two
sources, the society (i.e. the political-administrative system) and employees
and citizens:
We have some external requirements and expectations which can put focus on a need for
development. It can be something that happens in society at the political level and the citizen
level. The other source of development is our employees and citizens.
A development department does exist in this organization. But develop-

ment or innovation remains a task that management must take responsibility
for. By taking responsibility for development and innovation, management

can come to terms with inputs from society so that the organization is not
detached from “the reality in which it lives”:
If one is going to find out how we pay attention to development, it is by coming to terms with
all the inputs we get from our surroundings. It may be from our own organization, the people
we take care of and what happens in society, in educational institutions, research and so on.
It is part of the management task both to ensure that there is support for daily operations but
also focus on development. Otherwise, at a certain point in time, one is left with an organi-
zation which is not well integrated in the reality in which it lives.
At the time of the interview with management, the case was planning for
developing a new health care centre in connection with home care. This
idea came from the political-administrative system. The background was a
new health act, in which the Danish municipalities were obliged to take
care of health promotion. It was not specified in the act how to do so. A
health care centre emphasising prevention and rehabilitation can be one

way for the municipality to lift this responsibility. This concept had already
been tried out in other parts of the municipality.
In 2009 we are just about to roll out a health care centre. We are also going to make an exper-
iment in order to create a health house in the long run, where we will enrol private and public
stakeholders…. It is a complete concept that we will try out here. We have achieved a budget
to try it out and we have found office space for it.
But the case wants to develop the idea of the health care centre to suit
local resources and demands better: By integrating health promotion with
elderly care, health promotion will reach people that are not already diag-
nosed with chronic diseases.
When we meet with the project group (from the health administration, ed) which comes here
and says that now you must implement this (a health care centre, ed), then we say: Fine, but
we want to develop it further. We want to implement what you have done. This is probably
good. The health care centre functions well. Therefore, we don’t want to spend too much
time on this. What we want to spend time on is the next step. Further develop it, because we
think this is the right thing to do.
In elderly care in the case, management thus wants to develop and

improve the concept. Expert working groups with doctors and nurses have
been created to work out new service frameworks. To be able to transform
the idea of the health care centre into something useful at the local level
also requires a persistent work to convince the administration:
We have to sow small seeds in there (in the health administration, ed). Every time I have had
the opportunity, I have come there and explained what we are doing here. Step by step make
them become interested. We try to throw a ball into the playing field – also at regional con-
ferences, where we meet with the hospital sector.
It is difficult to convince the different actors and build the necessary net-
works both externally and internally.
What we do, we have had to fight for. To have other people understand the idea, think in the
same way as in home care and the training centre, we have been alone on that point.

Lars FUGLSANG
The employees have had difficulties along the way. What is it they (management, ed) want
me to do?
Now we have thrown a ball, then we must put pressure on our administration to catch it. And
make this the way we work here.
In conclusion, innovation can be characterised as an intentional activity.

It starts with an external, imposed idea, which must be translated and trans-
formed into something more concrete and relevant. The metaphor is a ball
which is played around between the different actors. The task is to establish
the necessary network between the relevant participants and keep them
convinced and focused on the project. Top management therefore has the
task to involve employees and other relevant actors by making them inter-
ested and keep them focused on the idea.

Innovation as a semi-intentional management
mediated problem-driven formalised activity
Innovation as partly intentional, partly emergent (semi-intentional) has been

observed among employees in charge of ordering services for the elderly.
These employees are not working front stage in the homes of the elderly, but
back stage in offices. In this setting, managers and employees often organize
meetings in order to clarify problems and new ideas that can solve concrete
problems. From time to time, pilot project are initiated to test a possible
solution to a problem. Some of these pilots become implemented on a per-
manent basis. Three small examples can serve as illustrations of innovation
as a semi-intentional phenomenon:
The first example is a new concept for introducing elderly people to day
activity centres. Newcomers to these day centres can feel lonely amongst
other people in the day centre. Therefore, the case had the idea to let expe-
rienced elderly introduce newcomers to the centres. This idea emerged from
nurses that were responsible for carrying out preventive talks with elderly
people. Among other things, they asked elderly people whether they wanted
to attend a day centre. As a consequence of these interviews, it became clear
that there was an important problem here. Day centres were contacted and
it was suggested that they encouraged experienced elderly to take the new-
comers by the hand.
The second example is a new tour shopping feature for pensioners. The
idea came from management after an enquiry from a bus owner. The bus
owner was transporting pensioners to day centres, but he had available time
during the day. What could this time be used for? Management resolved that
the existing shopping arrangement for clients perhaps could be changed.
Rather than bringing commodities to the clients, the bus owner could take
them to the local shopping centre where they could do the shopping them-

selves. A pilot project was organised. The evaluation of this pilot showed
that the clients preferred this new arrangement to the old one. The new
arrangement was also less expensive than the old one.
The third example is a project meant to stimulate elderly men to attend
local clubs – which the municipality can offer for its citizens according to
the Danish Service Act (§ 79). The idea came from an entrepreneur-type
employed in the Copenhagen health administration. This person had earlier
worked with elderly care in a volunteer organisation. The specific back-
ground for this idea was the high suicide rate for elderly men. The Ministry
of Social Affairs and local district councils therefore agreed to finance a
three years’ pilot project which could target activities in these clubs towards
men. Coming more in these clubs could help elderly men to build a network
around their interests. This arrangement has been continuously evaluated

through interviews and questionnaires.
Altogether these examples show how service innovations are emerging
out of specific problem contexts and are due to special relations and con-
tacts: Concrete practical problems are identified on a day-to-day basis and
employees try to do something about them through formalisation and project

culture. In conclusion, in this approach to innovation, there is emphasis on
emerging problems and formalizing project culture and pilot projects around
them.
Bricolage
Home helpers do not initiate grand innovation projects by themselves. They

do participate in innovation projects, but the concept of bricolage is a much
more useful term for understanding how they contribute to the renewal of
the service over time.
The interviewed home helpers in the case agree that many changes have
occurred in their working life over the past 20 years. They think most of
these changes are politically dictated. Before, there was more freedom and
time to carry out work. Later, documentation of work became more requested.
Cleaning rather than care became the central service provided for. Later
again, care has regained its status as top priority – but there is less time to
carry out the work. At the same time, many new projects are initiated.
Many new projects have been launched, either by management or the
health administration in the municipality. At the same time, there is a per-
ception amongst home helpers that several of these pilot projects are not
adequately implemented or converted into permanent services – they
remain experimental rather than they are innovations. The concrete results
of the pilots are not known to the home helpers and the projects are quickly

Lars FUGLSANG
forgotten about again. As one employee says: “Sometimes, many of these

projects seem to die at a certain stage. Then you just have to move on.”
Home helpers largely support these projects because they correspond to
their work values. The work values are to help the elderly to become more
self-supporting and watch them become happier. Improvement of the citi-
zens’ health and mood is the main driving force in work – as opposed to more
abstract thinking about development, innovation and creativity: “What
drives us in work is to see citizens become better and fresher again after com-
ing home (from the hospital).”
According to the interviewed home helpers only a few projects have
been initiated by the home helpers front stage. Most formalized projects are
initiated back stage. Home helpers can instead provide feedback on projects,
but this happens often in an informal way:

As employees, we have an impact on development in an indirect way. One gives some kind
of feedback – informally. If something does not function the rumour will spread. There is no
systematic questionnaire. This would also be in vain. You deal with the problems as they
emerge. There are no resources for systematically collecting experiences.
Home helpers’ contribution to innovation is therefore much better

described as do-it-yourself bricolage. Bricolage comes in several forms. For
example, employees can influence innovation by signing up as resource per-
sons in specific areas. Some employees have signed up as resource persons to
take charge of specific work-related problems such as back pain during their
work. They take courses where they can learn about the topic. They will
then disseminate the knowledge acquired to their colleagues. However, the
knowledge they acquire during a course, they partly construct it by them-
selves:
I attend a course. There are some physiotherapists. And some other employees who teach us.
They come up with ideas and we have ourselves to develop some ideas which I can pass on to
my group. It could be how to lift people out of their bed. How do you do this without destroy-
ing your back? It can be about support stockings. How can you put on support stockings with-
out hurting your hands? The physiotherapists do not have the perfect solution. Then you
participate in some small groups in the course. And you try things out. Then you show your
ideas to other small groups. Then someone says: No, we don’t think so! We think this! Then
there are a lot of suggestions as to how you can do.
During such courses, employees are also trying to familiarize themselves

with the situation of the elderly, for example by being hung up in a lift. After
such a course, they advise their colleagues in the citizens’ homes and involve
colleagues and citizens in discussions about how citizens can be treated, for
example lifted in the best possible way. Another form of bricolage happens
in the service encounter. The employees often come up with practical ideas
for improvements when they work in the home of the citizens. These ideas
can be divided into two types: ideas about health and ideas about how to

handle the meeting with the citizens. Such ideas are then often discussed in
the lunch break. One example is how to take care of a deaf client:
I had a client who was completely deaf. She was sitting in her own thoughts. She had a lamp
which gave out light when one pushed the alarm bottom. Often she sat knitting. You could
give her a fright, if you entered the door. Then I stamped my foot in the floor. Then she felt
the vibration. Then she was not scared when somebody suddenly stood there – if she had not
paid attention to the light from the lamp. This is something you can also use in relation to
other deaf persons. I have explained this to other home helpers. These are small things, but
they matter for the single person.
Home helpers must often respond to people when they are not satisfied
with the service. This is also a source of innovation and bricolage:
If the citizens are unsatisfied I try to please them as good as I can. Usually you can uncover
the problem by yourself together with the citizen. We also talk about how we can deal with
them in the group. And inspire each other about how you can deal with it in a smart way.
There is a lot of talk about this.

These small emerging adaptations are consolidated as routine through
frequent exchanges of experiences among the home helpers within a single
home help group. By contrast, there is not much exchange of experiences
beyond the group. “We’re not talking with other groups in Copenhagen. We
do not share experiences with other districts.” Over time, each group by
working in a district with particular clients – not being much in contact
with other groups – develop a specific work style and distinct routine that
fits the needs of citizens in the local area – and which is reproduced. This
bricolage adds up to a kind of process innovation based on experience and
interaction with citizens.
Citizens are rarely directly proposing new ideas for development and
innovation. They do not directly formulate a general idea for a service. Cit-
izens in the district are basically seen as grateful in relation to public service.
Home helpers and home nurses must instead try to identify problems by lis-
tening carefully to the citizen. They try to adjust the service drawing on con-
versations with citizens.
Citizens come up with ideas about how they can be more self-supporting… Home helpers
respond to this. They come up with concrete suggestions as to what can be done. Then we
discuss this and arrange a meeting with the citizen. It is in a conversation with the citizen that
we formulate a need.
Home helpers “edit” their time and tinker with schedules to get things
done. They know how much time they should spend on a client and they
make small decision about this. In this way, they develop a more flexible rou-
tine based in experience.
I am not so strict on my time when I am with a citizen. If she needs me to stay a quarter of an
hour more, then I do it. Then I just catch up in another place, with somebody else, where I
know I will not fully use my time. You have to be flexible in order to be employed in home
care.

Lars FUGLSANG
In conclusion, “innovation” in the case be described as something that

incorporates bricolage. The service is put together during delivery following
a do-it-yourself principle. Innovation is an emergent rather than an inten-
tional activity. The emerging ideas are discussed and transferred from one
home helper to another, even though it is often only part of an idea which is
transferred.
New ideas often occur in the encounter with the citizens in their homes.
When employees are discussing these ideas in a lunch break, this amounts to
“a posteriori recognition of innovation”. One becomes aware of how new
solutions evolve and new skills and new knowledge are developed. Home
helpers work with development of small ideas that are critical for the specific
client. Over time this leads to a re-building of skills and knowledge and the
exercise of new routines.

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that bricolage, ad hoc innova-
tion and a posteriori recognition of innovation are important for changing
and reproducing routines. These small innovations lead to new skills and
new routines that are an integral part of the service and the service delivery.
This in turn means that each home group will develop a distinct working
style which is relevant for citizens in the local area.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that three types of innovation exist in the case: 1) Inno-
vation as an intentional activity, 2) innovation as a semi-intentional activity,
and 3) innovation as bricolage. For management, innovation is intentional
and imposed. For employees it is bricolage and intrinsically motivated.
It was argued that studies of innovation and development in public sector
services should take account of this practice- and process-based aspect of
innovation, since it can be seen as innovation with an impact on service
development. Process-based concepts such as ”ad hoc innovation” (Gallouj
and Weinstein, 1997), ”a posteriori recognition of innovation” (Toivonen et
al., 2007) and ”bricolage” (see e.g. Styhre, 2009) are highly relevant to under-
standing and analysing not just the daily routines but also critical aspects of
service development in this context. These activities “adjust the protocol to
unforeseen events” and “create structures by means of events”. Building skills
and expanding routines are at the core of this “bricolage”. In this sense, bri-
colage “involves some element that can be repeated in new situations”. It
opens the space for new ways of doing things and has an impact on the
development of services. But it is not “radical” innovation nor is it “inten-
tional” in the narrow sense of the word.

The case shows how bricolage can be supported by management. Experi-

ence groups are organised where problems and solutions are discussed in a
more systematic and formalised way leading to a diffusion and replication of
ideas. Sometimes management seeks further to formalise these exchanges by
allocating more time for development to employees. Management interven-
tion may sometimes imply more control and could be demoralising. But it
may also ensure that ideas are remembered, developed and repeated.
Formalising bricolage could in this way be a systemic tool that bridge
between intrinsic bricolage and exogenous elements: On the one hand, for-
malization of bricolage builds on concrete problems, as they are perceived
and solved by employees. On the other hand, formalisation could lead to sys-
tematisation, implementation and more diffusion of ideas.
The concept of bricolage understood as small adjustments following a do-

it-yourself-principle may also help to analyze and understand better how cit-
izens are involved in innovation. In the case, citizens do not directly come
up with relevant new ideas. It is rather the employees who interpret the
needs of the citizens and seek to respond to them.
Time will show whether this is a satisfactory way to relate to citizens’

needs. Respondents in our interviews said that citizens today are generally
thankful for receiving public services. Future elderly are, however, expected
to be more demanding and active. Criticism from citizens can be a result of
badly connected services. This can be when a citizen returns to home after
hospitalisation and home help is not in place. In this case, the citizen can
experience a critical lack of continuity and coherence in the service.
Creating this cohesion cannot probably rely only on bricolage but must
involve management. At least, management sees it as a special management
task to have a clear focus on development and innovation. Employees nor-
mally do not have a strong focus on innovation. Home caring is seen as oper-
ations tasks, not as a development task. Development and innovation is
integrated with daily work and is hardly noticed, and only little time is allo-
cated to development and innovation for front workers. For these and other
reasons, management attention to innovation and bricolage is critical.
Generally it appears that different forms of innovation mediated both by
management and employees exist side by side in a complex interaction
which is difficult to account for and measure, and which must be observed
and understood from a process- and practice perspective. For research into
public innovation more generally, and for the management as well as mea-
surement of innovation, it becomes an important challenge to make the pro-
cesses and the practices of innovation more visible.

Lars FUGLSANG
REFERENCES
AHUJA, G., KATILA, R. (2004), Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic
situations. Strategic Management Journal 25 (8-9):887-907.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., HERRON, M. (1996), Assess-
ing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal 39 (5):1154-1184.
BECHEIKH, N., HALILEM, N., JBILOU, J., MOSCONI, E., HAMMAMI, H.,
LANDRY, R. (2007), Conceptualization and Determinants of Innovation in the Public
Sector: A Systematic Review. Paper read at XVII International RESER Conference (Euro-
pean Research Network on Services and Space): "Service Competitiveness and Cohesion
- Balancing Dynamics in the Knowledge Society", 13-15th September 2007, at Tampere
Hall, Tampere, Finland.
BEKKERS, V., DUIVENBODEN, H. V., THAENS, M., eds. (2006), Information and Com-
munication Technology and Public Innovation: Assessing the ICT-Driven Modernization of Public

Administration. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
BESSANT, J. (2005), Enabling Continuous and Discontinuous Innovation: Learning From
the Private Sector. Public Money & Management 25 (1):35-42.
BOGASON, P. (2001), Fragmenteret forvaltning: demokrati og netværksstyring i decentraliseret
lokalstyre. Århus: Systime.

CALLON, M. (1986), Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the
Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: a new Sociology
of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul:196-233.
CERNY, P. G. (1995), Globalization and the Changing Logic of Collective Action. Inter-
national Organization 49 (4):595-620.
CERNY, P. G. (2008), Embedding neoliberalism: The evolution of a hegemonic paradigm.
The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 2 (1):1-46.
CERNY, P. G., EVANS, M. (2004), Globalization and Public Policy Under New Labour.
Policy Studies 25 (1):51-65.
DIMAGGIO, P. J., POWELL, W. W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Iso-
morphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review
48 (2):147-60.
DREJER, I. (2004), Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpeterian perspec-
tive. Research Policy 33 (3):551-562.
DUNLEAVY, P., MARGETTS, H., BASTOW, S., TINKLER, J. (2006), New public man-
agement is dead - long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 16 (3):467-494.
FUGLSANG, L. (2008), Capturing the benefits of open innovation in public innovation:
a case study. International Journal of Services Technology and Management 9 (3/4):234-248.
FUGLSANG, L., ed. (2008), Innovation and the creative process: towards innovation with care.
Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
GALLOUJ, F., WEINSTEIN, O. (1997), Innovation in Services. Research Policy 26:537-556.

GALLOUJ, F., WINDRUM, P. (2009), Services and services innovation. Journal of Evolu-
tionary Economics 19 (2):141-148.
GARFINKEL, H. (1967), Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
GARUD, R., HARDY, C., MAGUIRE, S. (2007), Special Issue on "Institutional Entre-
preneurship". Organization Studies 28 (7):957-1140.
GHERARDI, S. (2005), Organizational Knowledge : The Texture of Workplace Learning.
Oxford: Blackwell.
GOFFMAN, E. (1959), The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.
HANNAN, M. T., FREEMAN, J. (1989), Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
HARTLEY, J. (2005), Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Pub-
lic Money & Management 25 (1):27-34.
HERNES, T. (2008), Understanding organization as process : theory for a tangled world. Lon-

don: Routledge.
HERNES, T., WEIK, E. (2007), Organization as process: Drawing a line between endoge-
nous and exogenous views. Scandinavian Journal of Management 23 (3):251-264.
HOOD, C. (1991), A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration 69 (1):3-19.
JESSOP, B. (2002), The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press.
KANTER, R. M. (1996), The Change Masters. Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work. London/
Boston: International Thompson Business Press.
KIRBY, P. (2002), The Celtic Tiger in Distress: Growth with Inequality in Ireland. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
KIRBY, P. (2004), Development Theory and the Celtic Tiger. The European Journal of
Development Research 16 (2):301-328.
KOCH, P., CUNNINGHAM, P., SCHWABSKY, N., HAUKNES, J. (2005), Innovation
in the Public sector. Summary and policy recommendations. Oslo: Publin Report
No. D24, NIFU STEP.
KOCH, P., HAUKNES, J. (2005), On innovation in the public sector - today and beyond.
Oslo: Publin Report No. D20, NIFU STEP.
LATOUR, B. (2005), Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, Claren-
don lectures in management studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LÉVI-STRAUSS, C. (1966), The savage mind. Chicago & London: The University of
Chicago Press.
MEYER, J. W., ROWAN, B. (1977), Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83 (2):340-363.
MORAN, M. (2003), The British Regulatory State: High Modernism and Hyper-Innovation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MULGAN, G., ALBURY, D. (2003), Innovation in the Public Sector. London: Strategy
Unit, Cabinet Office, October 2003.
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (2006a), Achieving innovation in central government
organizations, HC 1447-I. London: The Stationary Office.

Lars FUGLSANG
NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE (2006b), Achieving innovation in central government

organizations, HC 1447-II. London: The Stationary Office.
NELSON, R. R., WINTER, S. G. (1977), In search of useful theory of innovation. Research
Policy 6 (1):36-76.
NICOLINI, D., GHERARDI, S., YANOW, D., eds. (2003), Knowing in organizations: A
practice-based approach. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
NISKANEN, W. A. (1971), Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine.
OECD (2005), The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Oslo Manual.
Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Third edition. A joint publication of
OECD and Eurostat. Paris: OECD.
OSBORNE, D., GAEBLER, T. A. (1992), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, from Schoolhouse to Statehouse, City Hall to the Penta-
gon. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

POLLITT, C. (2003), The essential public manager, Public policy and management. Miden-
head: Open University Press.
POLLITT, C., BOUCKAERT, G. (2004), Public management reform : a comparative analysis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ROGERS, E. M., KIM, J.-I. (1985), Diffusion of Innovation in Public Organizations. In

Innovation in the public sector, edited by R. L. Merritt and A. J. Merritt. London: Sage.
RØVIK, K. A. (1998), Moderne organisasjoner: trender i organisasjonstenkningen ved
tusenårsskiftet. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
SCHATZKI, T. R., KNORR-CETINA, K. D., SAVIGNY, E. V. (2001), The practice turn in
contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
SCHÜTZ, A. (1967), The phenomenology of the social world. London: Heinemann Educa-
tional Books.
SMITS, R., DEN HERTOG, P. (2007), TA and the management of innovation in economy
and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3 (1):28-52.
STEYAERT, C., HJORTH, D. (2006), Entrepreneurship as social change: a third movements
in entrepreneurship book. Cheltenham: Elgar.
STYHRE, A. (2009), Tinkering with material resources: Operating under ambiguous con-
ditions in rock construction work. The Learning Organization 16 (5):386-397.
SUNDBO, J. (1998), The Organisation of Innovation in Services. Frederiksberg: Roskilde
University Press.
SWEDBERG, R. (2000), Entrepreneurship: the social science view, Oxford management read-
ers. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
TIMMERMANS, S., BERG, M. (1997), Standardization in action: Achieveing local uni-
versality through medical protocols, Social studies of science. 27 (2):273-305.
TOIVONEN, M., TOUMINEN, T., BRAX, S. (2007), Innovation process interlinked
with the process of service delivery: a management challenge in KIBS. Économies et Sociétés
8 (3):355-384.
VEENSWIJK, M., ed. (2005), Organizing Innovation: New Approaches to Cultural Change
and Intervention in Public Sector Organizations. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

WEICK, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations, Foundations for organizational science.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.
WINDRUM, P. (2008), Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services. In Innovation
In Public Sector Services. Entrepreneurship, Creativity and Management, edited by P. Windrum
and P. Koch. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
WINDRUM, P. (2008), Innovation and entrepreneurship in public services, edited by P.
Windrum and P. Koch.
YOUNG FOUNDATION (2006), Social silicon valleys: a manifesto for social innovation,
what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. London: Young Foundation.


Fuglsang 2010

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fuglsang 2010

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BRICOLAGE AND INVISIBLE INNOVATION IN PUBLIC SERVICE

De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »

Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

Pour citer cet article :

Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 2010/1 (n° 5), p. 67-87.

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

what counts as ‘innovation’” (National Audit Office, 2006b: 4), there is

distinguished from “infinitesimal movements” and innovation must instead be

n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 67

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

68 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5

The paper first examines different research perspectives on public service

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

1. Public administration. First there is the public-administration litera-

n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 69

2. New institutionalism. A literature also exists that seeks to understand

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

70 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5

tion is a result of intrinsic problem-solving activities rather than of imposed

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

Emphasis on Emphasis on Development and Emphasis on micro Innovation as an

n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 71

In this paper it is illustrated how the latter two approaches to innovation

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

72 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5

evant also to the present paper. It is important to stress that innovation is

In this approach innovation and replication is a result of someone’s inten-

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 73

Ad hoc adjustments become innovations because they gradually change

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

the concept of bricolage. This concept was originally developed by Claude

74 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5

lapping with new institutionalism in Table 1); 2) new public management

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

structures by means of events” in a repeated way.

INNOVATION IN ELDERLY CARE

1. The ICE-project (http://www.ice-project.dk/), Roskilde University, financed by the Danish Stra-

n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 75

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

Innovation as intentional top-management

Innovation understood as an intentional implementation of new ideas is a

A development department does exist in this organization. But develop-

76 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

In elderly care in the case, management thus wants to develop and

n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 77

In conclusion, innovation can be characterised as an intentional activity.

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

Innovation as partly intentional, partly emergent (semi-intentional) has been

78 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

employees try to do something about them through formalisation and project

Home helpers do not initiate grand innovation projects by themselves. They

n° 5 – Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 79

forgotten about again. As one employee says: “Sometimes, many of these

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 189.6.16.22 - 05/02/2017 19h35. © De Boeck Supérieur

Home helpers’ contribution to innovation is therefore much better

During such courses, employees are also trying to familiarize themselves

80 Journal of Innovation Economics 2010/1 – n° 5