How to design an innovation agency

By David Donaldson

June 15, 2016

A tendency to reproduce agency and program structures regardless of the circumstances can undermine the efficacy of new innovation agencies, argues a report released last month.

A failure to build in flexibility from the start and the difficulty of measuring success and attributing it to individual interventions are also key challenges, says British innovation charity Nesta.

It’s important to recognise the range of possible models for innovation agencies, they explain. Simply copying another jurisdiction’s system may not be a good idea, depending on your goals, budget and local circumstances, so thinking through goals and expectations is a necessary part of setting up a new authority.

The approach that will work best in a given country “will only be possible after a detailed mapping of the national innovation system”, argues the report, which is based on case studies of agencies that work to promote innovation in ten different countries.

Governments need to “be both ambitious and realistic” about what they want to achieve and acknowledge the creation of a new body is just one lever in a fast moving and unpredictable policy area.

And you need to give them space to work — innovation agencies require a considerable amount of autonomy and an ability to follow through on longer-term interventions if they are to respond to new needs and challenges well, thinks Nesta.

Priority setting is important. Agencies must find a balance between having strong priorities to drive efficient and effective spending and a need to respond to changing circumstances:

“An innovation agency that is working towards many different objectives at the same time will find it difficult to establish a clear sense of purpose and a coherent portfolio of programmes. Mission creep may also lead the agency to spread its resources too thinly and fail to deliver on any of its objectives. However, having a long-term vision of what success looks like should not prevent an innovation agency from experimenting with new approaches and quickly responding to new needs and opportunities within the innovation system.”

The authors identify four types of innovation agencies.

  • Market and System Fixers: seek to address failures in markets and networks that impede business innovation and investment in R&D, often without preference for specific technologies or sectors.
  • Industry Builders: focus on transforming an economy or creating new sources of economic competiveness by investing in the development of a set of new sectors or technologies.
  • Mission Drivers: aim to induce innovations that address major societal and economic challenges, often in policy areas of significant traditional R&D spending such as defence, energy, the environment or health.
  • System Optimisers: work towards ensuring continuous global competitiveness and creating more effective and enabling innovation systems by experimenting with different policy and programme mixes.

Based on a review of the case studies and literature, the report recommends public servants designing a new innovation agency should consider eight key questions:

  1. What is the specific problem that needs to be solved?
  2. Which types of beneficiary should the agency support to further its mission?
  3. How much autonomy does the agency require to design and deliver its mission?
  4. What resources does the agency need to deliver on its objectives?
  5. What kind of support should the agency provide?
  6. What geographic level should the agency work at?
  7. What systems and processes should be put in place to understand outcomes?
  8. How can the agency’s overall value be judged?

Innovation promotion is all about making an impact on the real world, of course — and measuring its effect is a vital part of knowing what works. The report recommends a mix of quantitative and qualitative assessment of interventions:

“Understanding and attributing impact to innovation agencies is particularly difficult, since they operate in uncertain and changing systems, make complex interventions, and aim to achieve outcomes that are inherently unpredictable. As such, measuring their impact needs to include quantitative assessments of their portfolios, but also involve judgements of the quality of their management, their ability to take (and learn from) strategic risks, and the skill with which they design and implement their programmes.”

About the author
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

This is an important report and should be the foundation of a deep policy discussion. Too much of our innovation policy agenda is fixated on “there is not enough investment money” so we want crowdfunding, tax incentives,all mostly to support a flow of ill-informed money seeking lotto returns.
The growth centres represent a delegation of authority but few have taken the time to think through the relationships of their possible four functions with their missions.
We need to understand that as a small nation, we have great potential for collaboration but collaborations require system fixers and risk taking implementation, that itself is prepared to pivot.
One start: understand that our innovation system has two fundamental Realms: Design-led innovation and Research-led innovation. There are physical overalls but these realms retire different infrastructure and support mechanisms.

Ed Bernacki
Ed Bernacki
6 years ago

“What is the specific problem that needs to be solved?”
Has this question ever been answered in Australia? Having seen innovation policy in various countries over many year, have we actually created our formula to develop export oriented innovative organizations? I do not believe so. We can look to the Kiwis to see how they out perform AU in some areas such as agri technologies and product development.
A problem it saw was business executives who lacked skills for shaping high value products and services. We could also notice that it picked design as a type of national strategy to create value in business – and then set up a government consulting agency to work with the top companies — We would also notice that this started in 2002. As ‘innovation observer’ said, we need innovation to be ‘led’. You cannot copy and follow what other countries did ten years ago and expect to out perform them. We need to focus on the management skills and strategies used in all companies, not just start ups.

The Mandarin Premium

Insights & analysis that matter to you

Subscribe for only $5 a week


Get Premium Today