What does innovation work look like in your organization, within your management, in your team or project? It is conceivable that different forms of innovation have different needs and are related in different ways to each other. This is the reason why OPTIONS (OECD's Observatory for Public Sector Innovation) has developed a model and tools to develop public organisations' capacity for development and innovation, that is, our capacity to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

OPSI uses a model they call Facets of Innovation (see below). In it, innovations are divided into four areas: Mission-oriented innovation (working to solve set goals), Enhancement-oriented innovation (Improvement-oriented innovations), Anticipatory innovation (Innovations in uncertain and future-oriented areas) and Adaptive innovation (Adaptive innovations that meet new technologies and circumstances). There are also two axes, one that runs from bottom-up to top-down (where mission-oriented innovation is top-down and Adaptive innovation the opposite) and one from secure (Enhancement) to uncertain (Anticipatory).

‍

‍

When working with the Portfolio Exploration Tool (PET) tool, members of an innovation group, a department, or part of a municipality can make a self-assessment of the work on innovations. The result shows the member's view of the organization's innovation work, but the results of several members can also be weighed together to give a more comprehensive picture of where an organization's innovation work is located.

The estimate gives an idea of how much focus the group's work has in the different areas of innovation. It is also possible to place projects directly into the facet model. This can give an idea of where projects are located and thus provide an opportunity to be able to review what resources the projects need and how balanced the portfolio is. For example, the group can see if they are working mostly in the area of improvement but less towards adaptation towards new technologies or perhaps are unconnected to uncertain and radical changes. It can also be a way to see where resources are being put.

“Generally speaking, all innovations need different methods, resources and connectivity,” says Katarina Scott, project developer at Future by Lund. For example, if you are tasked with improving and saving - do you have the resources, knowledge and methods to do this through development or do you have to put things down? For us, it's a way to work strategically with the portfolio, and think about where we want the area to be and how we can act to move the area in the right direction. OPSI's model is also a way to compare their innovation efforts against other cities so we can learn from each other.

The survey can be done with different starting points and the answers will then be different. For example, an individual can respond based on their own organisation but also on the basis of a role in Lund's overall innovation ecosystem. The results will then be different and can show strengths and weaknesses to work with.

Future by Lund first came into contact with OPSI when the tool was presented at NatSam, the national collaboration for innovation platforms. Since Future by Lund's representatives found it interesting, Future by Lund had to try the tool, both as a test pilot for other innovation platforms but also as a user who is involved in developing OPSI's tools.

“We have received the response from OPSI that they appreciate Lund's insights and that we are helping the OECD to design the tool,” says Emily Wise. Soon we will start discussions about what we can do together in the future.

In Lund, the projects Viable City and Future by Lund have tested to make the self-assessment, which was perceived to provide an increased understanding of the projects' strengths and needs.

‍