This article continues the conversation on public service innovation and transformation in the International Review of Administrative Sciences. Political, socio-economic and technological changes drive public service transformation in rendering current service delivery models increasingly ineffective. However, public service transformation introduces risks. This article finds a paucity of academic research into those risks, highlighting need for their management. The key conclusion is that risk management, leadership and public participation can facilitate or hinder public service transformation.
Points for practitioners
Risk management features prominently in public and private sector discourse, and is perceived as a core element of corporate governance and a tool for achieving strategic objectives. It is key to facilitating public service transformation and ensuring that organizational objectives are achieved because it can optimise inherent opportunities while mitigating associated risks. This article contributes to public administration practice by developing a new conceptualization of the role of risk management in public service transformation.
AbouAssiKBowmanAO (2017)
Special-purpose authorities: A welcomed alien to decentralization in Lebanon?International Review of Administrative Sciences83(3): 503–523.
2.
AgostinoDArenaMArnaboldiM (2013)
Leading change in public organizations: The role of mediators.Leadership & Organization Development Journal34(7): 596–615.
3.
Alghamdi F (2018) Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship; A Systems View Across Time and Space 7(1): 1--14.
4.
AsenovaDBaileySMcCannC (2015a)
Managing municipal austerity: Mitigation of social risks.Local Government Studies41(1): 1–19.
5.
AsenovaDBaileySJMcCannC (2015b)
Public sector risk managers and spending cuts: Mitigating risks.Journal of Risk Research18(5): 552–565.
6.
Association of Business Schools (ABS) (2015) Academic Journal Guide 2015. London, UK: Association of Business Schools (ABS).
7.
AsogwaBE (2013)
Electronic government as a paradigm shift for efficient public services. Library Hi Tech31(1): 141–159.
8.
AyhanBÜstünerY (2015)
Governance in public procurement: The reform of Turkey’s public procurement system. International Review of Administrative Sciences81(3): 640–662.
9.
BhuiyanSHAmagohF (2011)
Public sector reform in Kazakhstan: Issues and perspectives.International Journal of Public Sector Management24(3): 227–249.
10.
BirrellD (2010)
Public sector reform in Northern Ireland: Policy copying or a distinctive model of public sector modernization?Public Money & Management30(2): 109–115.
11.
BlackburnG (2014)
Elements of successful change: The service Tasmania experience to public sector reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration73(1): 103–114.
12.
Bogdan R and Taylor SJ (1975) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Phenomenological Approach to the Social Sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
13.
BraunVClarkeV (2006)
Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
CadburyJ (1992) Cadbury Report on Corporate Governance (Prepared by Sir John Cadbury).
London:
Gee Professional Publishing.
16.
CampbellJW (2018)
Felt responsibility for change in public organizations: General and sector-specific paths.Public Management Review20(2): 232–253.
17.
CareyGMatthewsM (2017)
Methods for delivering complex social services: Exploring adaptive management and regulation in the Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme.Public Management Review19(2): 194–211.
18.
ChalhoubMS (2010)
Public attitudes towards government restructuring of IT public services: Application to e-government in the Middle East.International Journal of Management27(3): 541–561.
19.
CliffordBP (2012)
Planning in an age of customers: British local authority practitioners, identity and reactions to public sector reform.The Town Planning Review83(5): 553–574.
DahanA (2015)
Professional values and organizational change dynamics: The case of the reform of doctoral training in France. International Review of Administrative Sciences81(2): 245–263.
22.
DanSPollittC (2015)
NPM can work: An optimistic review of the impact of New Public Management reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. Public Management Review17(9): 1305–1332.
23.
DaviesS (2011)
Outsourcing, public sector reform and the changed character of the UK state–voluntary sector relationship.The International Journal of Public Sector Management24(7): 641–649.
24.
DavisEKeeJNewcomerK (2010)
Strategic transformation process: Toward purpose, people, process and power. Organization Management Journal7(1): 66–80.
25.
De VriesHTummersLBekkersV, et al. (2018)
A stakeholder perspective on public sector innovation: Why position matters. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(2): 269–287.
26.
EakinHEriksenSEikelandP, et al. (2011)
Public sector reform and governance for adaptation: Implications of New Public Management for adaptive capacity in Mexico and Norway. Environmental management47(3): 338–351.
27.
EloSKyngäsH (2008)
The qualitative content analysis process.Journal of Advanced Nursing62(1): 107–115.
28.
EvansJMGrudniewiczATsasisP (2018)
Trial and error, together: Divergent thinking and collective learning in the implementation of integrated care networks.International Review of Administrative Sciences84(3): 452–468.
FernandezSKomaSLeeH (2018)
Establishing the link between representative bureaucracy and performance: The South African case.Governance31(3): 535–553.
31.
FlindersMTonkissK (2016)
From ‘poor parenting’ to micro-management: Coalition governance and the sponsorship of arm’s-length bodies in the United Kingdom, 2010–13.International Review of Administrative Sciences82(3): 490–515.
GatenbyMReesCTrussC, et al. (2015)
Managing change, or changing managers? The role of middle managers in UK public service reform. Public Management Review17(8): 1124–1145.
34.
GbrichC (2007) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction (1st edn).London:
Sage Publications.
35.
GodenhjelmSJohansonJ (2018)
The effect of stakeholder inclusion on public sector project innovation. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(1): 42–62.
36.
Hartley J and Rashman L (2018) Innovation and inter organizational learning in the context of public service reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences 84(2): 231--248.
37.
HassanM (2015)
Ensuring effective public service delivery in the field administration of Bangladesh to boast up good governance: The perspective of Deputy Commissioner Office.International Journal of Business and Management10(4): 92–112.
38.
HirokoK (2010)
E-governance as strategy of public sector reform: Peculiarity of Japanese IT policy and its institutional origin.Financial Accountability & Management26(1): 65–84.
39.
HlepasN (2016)
Is it the twilight of decentralization? Testing the limits of functional reforms in the era of austerity.International Review of Administrative Sciences82(2): 273–290.
40.
HunterDJErskineJSmallA, et al. (2015)
Doing transformational change in the English NHS in the context of ‘big bang’ redisorganization: Findings from the North East transformation system.Journal of Health Organization and Management29(1): 10–24.
41.
Jacot-DescombesCNiklausJ (2016)
Is centralisation the right way to go? The case of internal security policy reforms in Switzerland in the light of community policing.International Review of Administrative Sciences82(2): 335–353.
42.
JensenUT (2018)
Does perceived societal impact moderate the effect of transformational leadership on value congruence? Evidence from a field experiment.Public Administration Review78(1): 48–57.
43.
JensenUTAndersenLBØJacobsenCB (2019)
Only when we agree! How value congruence moderates the impact of goal-oriented leadership on public service motivation.Public Administration Review79(1): 12–24.
44.
JohnstonKHoustonJ (2018)
Representative bureaucracy: Does female police leadership affect gender-based violence arrests?International Review of Administrative Sciences84(1): 3–20.
45.
KimSHanC (2015)
Administrative reform in South Korea: New Public Management and the bureaucracy.International Review of Administrative Sciences81(4): 694–712.
46.
LewisJMRicardLMKlijnEH, et al. (2018)
How innovation drivers, networking and leadership shape public sector innovation capacity. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(2): 288–307.
47.
LindquistE (2010)
From rhetoric to blueprint: The Moran Review as a concerted, comprehensive and emergent strategy for public service reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration69(2): 115–151.
48.
McTaggartDO’FlynnJ (2015)
Public sector reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration74(1): 13–22.
49.
MillerKJMcTavishD (2014)
Representative bureaucracy: A typology of normative institutional strategies for the representation of women. Policy & Politics42(4): 531–546.
50.
MunroJ (2015)
Accelerating innovation in local government. Public Money & Management35(3): 219–226.
51.
NavarroCVelascoF (2016)
‘In wealth and in poverty?’ The changing role of Spanish municipalities in implementing childcare policies. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(2): 315–334.
52.
NgouoLB (2017)
The World Bank’s approach to public sector management for 2011–2020: Proposals to push forward the debate. International Review of Administrative Sciences83(3): 541–562.
53.
OsborneSBrownL (2011)
Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king?Public Administration89(4): 1335–1350.
54.
Pollitt C (2010) Cuts and reforms--Public services as we move into a new era. Society and Economy 32(1): 17--31.
55.
PrevitaliP (2015)
The Italian administrative reform of small municipalities: State-of-the-art and perspectives.Public Administration Quarterly39(4): 548.
56.
PRISMA (Welcome to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (2015) Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (accessed 5 February 2015).
57.
RadnorZO’MahoneyJ (2013)
The role of management consultancy in implementing operations management in the public sector.International Journal of Operations & Production Management33(11): 1555–1578.
58.
ReidL (2014)
Adding value through new public leadership.The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services10(4): 233–242.
59.
RoggemaRVermeendTDobbelsteenAvd (2012)
Incremental change, transition or transformation? Optimising change pathways for climate adaptation in spatial planning. Sustainability4(10): 2525–2549.
60.
RouxL (2015)
Public service values and e-administration: An explosive mix? Illustration drawing on the case of the family allowance funds (caisses d’Allocations familiales) in France.International Review of Administrative Sciences81(2): 227–244.
61.
RyanGWBernardHR (2003)
Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods15(1): 85–109.
62.
Sangiorgi D, Borodako K and Saritas O (2015) Designing for public sector innovation in the UK: Design strategies for paradigm shifts. Foresight 17(4): 332--348.
63.
SimonetD (2015)
The New Public Management theory in the British health care system: A critical review. Report47(7): 802.
64.
ThijssenPVan DoorenWSteenT, et al. (2016)
Who you are/where you live: Do neighbourhood characteristics explain co-production?International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 88–109.
65.
TholenB (2015)
Citizen participation and bureaucratization: The participatory turn seen through a Weberian lens. International Review of Administrative Sciences81(3): 585–603.
66.
TranfieldDDenyerDSmartP (2003)
Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management14(3): 207–222.
67.
TuanTL (2017)
Reform in public organizations: The roles of ambidextrous leadership and moderating mechanisms. Public Management Review19(4): 518–541.
68.
Turnbull Report (1999) Internal Control: Guide for Directors on Combined Code. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants.
69.
Van AckerWBouckaertG (2018)
What makes public sector innovations survive? An exploratory study of the influence of feedback, accountability and learning. International Review of Administrative Sciences84(2): 249–268.
70.
WettenhallR (2011)
Organizational amnesia: A serious public sector reform issue.The International Journal of Public Sector Management24(1): 80–96.
71.
WilderspinJ (2013)
Health and wellbeing boards and service transformation.Journal of Integrated Care21(1): 13–18.
72.
ZhangX (2012)
The use of geographic information system in local government’s modernisation.Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy6(2): 206–222.
