The Institutionalization of Public Innovation: Evidence from Indonesia

• Author: I Putu Yoga Bumi Pradana,Wahyudi Kumorotomo,Ely Susanto
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231151438
• Published date: 01 April 2023
• Date: 01 April 2023

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231151438

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(4) 726 –751

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997231151438

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

The Institutionalization

of Public Innovation:

Evidence from Indonesia

I Putu Yoga Bumi Pradana1,2,

Wahyudi Kumorotomo1,

and Ely Susanto1

Abstract

This study examines critical factors contributing to institutionalizing creative

ideas into a formal innovation and their difference in the regulatory-pillar

output of innovation, which public sector innovation academics (PSI) rarely

explore. Using multiple case study methods, this study interviewed 23

informants involved in four innovation cases in two local governments in

Indonesia. This study highlighted nine critical factors in institutionalizing public

innovation categorized into four dimensions: leadership, intraorganizational,

innovation candidate attributes, and external environment. This study’s

novel contribution lies in identifying critical factors shaping and the outputs

of institutionalization of public innovation.

Keywords

public sector innovation, institutionalization, organizational routines, local

government, Indonesia

1Department of Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,

Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

2Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Universitas Nusa

Cendana, Kupang, Indonesia

Corresponding Author:

Ely Susanto, Department of Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political

Sciences, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Sosio Yustisio, No. 1 Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta 55281,

Indonesia.

Email: elysusanto@ugm.ac.id

1151438AAS0010.1177/00953997231151438Administration & SocietyPradana et al.

research-article2023

Pradana et al. 727

Introduction

Public sector innovation (PSI) is primarily determined by organizational

capacity to generate and develop creative ideas into innovation prototypes

and integrate them into organizational routines, known as institutionalizing

innovation (Amabile, 1988; Hjelmar, 2021). Creativity that involves novelty

performance is the initial foundation for innovation candidates to be institu-

tionalized as implemented innovations (Amabile, 1988; Bason, 2010). Thus,

creativity and institutionalization in the innovation process are interrelated

and inescapable (Hjelmar, 2021; Sonenshein, 2016).

Despite being interrelated, the phases of generating and institutional-

izing creative ideas are two different things (Hjelmar, 2021; Sonenshein,

2016). Creativity produces a discontinuous change, while institutional-

ization makes these changes a normal routine of an organization to endure

a long time (Cobian & Ramos, 2021; Hjelmar, 2021). Also, many scholars

such as Cinar et al. (2019, 2021) and Hjelmar (2021) argue that the criti-

cal phase for innovation realization is not only the phase of how to gener-

ate creativity as a foundation of innovation prototypes but also the stage

of how institutionalized innovation prototypes become implemented

innovations.

Although the phase of institutionalization of innovation prototypes is

critical to the success of the innovation producing process, there is very

little research on this issue (Bernier et al., 2015; Cinar et al., 2019; Pradana

et al., 2022). Many studies have addressed producing PSI, such as

Damanpour and Schneider (2006), Salge (2011), Walker (2013), and

Hartley and Rashman (2018). Yet they have specific limitations. The

research fails to distinguish between the phases of generating and institu-

tionalizing creative ideas, despite the view that PSI studies need to investi-

gate each stage of the innovation process individually to develop

comprehensive PSI theory. Many scholars argue that each phase has differ-

ent characteristics (see Buchheim et al., 2020; Cinar et al., 2019; De Vries

et al., 2016; Pradana et al., 2022). Second, existing investigations do not

discuss the process and output of innovation institutionalization. Third,

such studies have been conducted in developed-western countries. These

limitations underline the issue of institutionalization of innovation as a

noteworthy area for further progress in PSI scholarship, particularly in

developing countries in Asia (Bernier et al., 2015; Hjelmar, 2021; van der

Wal & Demircioglu, 2020).

To address this research gap in the PSI literature and respond to calls from

Bernier et al. (2015), De Vries et al. (2016), and van Der Wal and Demircioglu

(2020), this study will examine two questions: