Innovative Capacity and Participatory Policymaking in Armenia

Strategic planning and policy coordination

• There is a gap between strategy intent and implementation, consequently strategies that include innovative and participatory principles are rarely leading to increased uptake of these approaches.

• The PAR agenda provides potential for a more coherent and coordinated approach to strategic planning and systems-wide supports and enablers for innovation (methods, competency frameworks, strategy design).

• The volatility and fragmentation of the political landscape threatens continuity of innovation projects.

• Public sector challenges and policy issues are solved in horizontal and collaborative ways through a coherent, coordinated approach to strategic planning and policymaking which embeds innovative and participatory approaches.

• There are dedicated supports available to empower public servants and organisations to embed innovative and participatory ways of working into their everyday efforts to improve resilience, efficiency and effectiveness.

• There is a whole-of-the-government performance management system which ensures sufficient delivery of promises and commitments. Success is rewarded through different channels, while failure is explored further to reveal lessons learned.

• Monitoring and evaluation reports are accessible to the public, and the government takes full accountability for its performance.

• Leverage the new strategic governance framework to improve policy coordination and planning by ensuring innovative and participatory approaches are consistently incorporated into strategic planning. Ensure strategies are regularly monitored and evaluated to assess their effectiveness and to know where innovation needed to make them more impactful.

• Produce guidelines on effective strategy, programme and operational plan development, including how to leverage participatory and user-centred methods, accompanied by training and support for public servants implementing these methods.

• Increase the Department for Programmes Expertise’s capacity and resourcing to ensure the successful roll-out of this new approach to strategic governance. This include building the team’s expertise and capacity in strategic foresight and innovative methods so they can support the integration of these methods and guidance into strategic planning (see Box 3.1).

• In the future, these centralised supports in strategic planning and policy coordination could include a dedicated strategic foresight team within the Centre of Government to public servants to leverage these approaches and build a community of practice, to provide a centralised risk detection, horizon scanning and signals bank and / or to coordinate cross-country foresight studies.

• Introduce dedicated mandates, roles and responsibilities for innovation, with accompanying resources to support innovation, such as a dedicated innovation team, innovation lab or innovation accelerator, incubator or fund who can consistently support innovation projects regardless of political or leadership changes (see Table 3.2. Leveraging explicit mechanisms to accelerate bottom-up innovation).

Collaboration

• Some examples are emerging on technical-level collaboration on innovation projects (e.g. life events approach).

• Existing collaboration mechanisms are formal and not supportive of innovation, with a notable absence of mechanisms to support bottom-up innovation.

• Few mechanisms for cross sectoral innovation exist (e.g. no missions, ecosystem or innovation procurement mechanisms).

• Innovation efforts are fragmented rather than approaching issues in a cross-cutting fashion.

• Public servants can work across organisational boundaries to solve cross-cutting issues.

• Innovators at all levels have opportunities to collaborate on innovation initiatives.

• Cross-sectoral innovation projects are deliberately and consistently supported.

• Establish dedicated collaborative and participatory innovation mechanisms to enable cross-sectoral collaboration to develop innovative solutions on key societal challenges, such as innovation missions (with missions selected using participatory methods) (see Box 3.3).

• Establish an innovation network or build on the existing innovation network. The network should provide a dedicated space for the spread of innovative ideas and offer capacity building / training and support on implementing a variety of innovation methods. For the network to be effective, a dedicated coordinator should be nominated and activities designed based on the needs of members. Ensure that the network is delivering value to members by equipping them with the necessary skills to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively (see Box 3.4).

• Introduce bottom-up mechanisms for innovation such as an idea contest, design sprint programme, incubator, right-to-challenge, hackathons or an innovation lab to gather and incubate ideas from public servants while building capacity for these methods to be autonomously applied by participating public servants (see Table 3.2).

Risk management

• Senior servants are not well versed in using innovative approaches to control risks.

• Risk tolerance is low, partly due to residual corruption issues that have led to a highly punitive and unforgiving system of tolerating failure.

• Innovation processes are designed to manage risk through early testing, user research, prototyping and application of “fail fast” principles.

• Senior managers are equipped with the skills and platforms to support safe risk-taking, that protects them from personal repercussions in the event of failure.

• Establish a dedicated innovation process for early-stage ideas with stage gated funding. This can include idea contests, experimentation funding or an incubator programme with a target fail rate to encourage the principle of “fail fast” (Box 3.7 and Table 2.2). The Ministry of High-Tech Industry or ISAA could host initial pilots of a programme of this nature as both already have capacity in these areas. Alternatively, non-governmental actors could host these programmes in partnership with the government, if clearly linked to government priorities and with the government represented in decision making and requirement setting.

• Build capacity for iterative and innovative policy and service design processes by introducing a dedicated design sprint function or scaling up the use of sludge audits. Both incorporate risk mitigation measures such as user research, prototyping and testing. This could be done by scaling up the efforts of the ISAA Digital Service Design Team in sludge methods, establishing a team in government or support organisations to run design processes or sludge methods with government stakeholders, or providing train-the-trainer style support in behavioural insights and / or design, with a dedicated support team or mentors to show trainees how to these methods.

• Introduce annual innovation, participation and failure awards to create positive incentives for innovation that combat fear of risk taking.

• In the long term, if the public sector adopts a risk management framework, it could specifically include risk management for innovation.

Human resource management and skills

• Human resource management does not encourage innovative behaviours.

• Learning opportunities on how to apply innovative and participatory methods are largely absent, a

• The public service is able to recruit and retain specialised experts who can successful design and implement innovative and participatory approaches to public governance.

• Human resource management is a unified function, where skills gaps are regularly identified and addressed and public servants are empower to improve their skills and competencies.

• Leverage ongoing reforms in the human resource system to take a more evidence-based, integrated and strategic approach to human resource management that defines and supports key competencies needed in the public sector, gathers data on workforce satisfaction, links performance management to competencies and learning opportunities and establishes a learning system based on data of workforce needs and trends. Through the forthcoming competency framework (included in the PAR strategy actions), innovative competencies should be considered in various job families, with different roles and skillsets for different professions and grades in the public sector (see Box 3.9).

• In refinements to the performance management framework, introduce a category on innovative behaviours and include this in institutional level reporting. This can help encourage innovative behaviours, identify opportunities for learning and development in innovation skills areas and enable measurement of levels of innovative behaviours at the organisational level (see Box: 3.9).

• Establish dedicated capacity building programmes for applied innovation skills, based on the most urgent skills needs and gaps (e.g. prototyping, design, foresight, data science, artificial intelligence). This could be delivered through an innovation network, innovation lab or external training providers but should be accompanied by continued guidance to trainees on how to implement these skills in practice. Ensure that the outcomes of all training programmes are evaluated to ensure the skills are being implemented.

• Increase the capacity support currently provided by the ISAA service design team in procurement, innovative service design, user research and evaluation by increasing the team’s capacity.

• Establish mechanisms for learning from innovation and sharing of best practices and failures, such as an innovation network (potentially building on the current external network), innovation awards programme or case study platform. An innovation awards programme could be a quick win to gather innovation cases, build awareness of efforts and accelerate innovation. The awards could be used to populate a case study library such as in Denmark (Center For Offentlig-Private Innovation, n.d.[105]).

• Build awareness of the Code of Conduct for public servants which explicitly includes innovative behaviours and support public sector institutions in implementing the Code of Conduct.

• Scale up the existing flexible hiring mechanisms such as the 5% rule on hiring experts or the iGorts programme to enable the hiring of specialised experts, to capture talent from other sectors to support the public sector or consider introducing a dedicated innovation professionals programme. Alternatively, establish a dedicated hiring programme for innovation professionals such as behavioural scientists, foresight experts and designers.

Policy design, service delivery and procurement

• Best practice examples on user centred design are emerging, including sludge audits and life events-based approaches.

• Skills in both traditional and innovative procurement are lacking, making it difficult to procure innovative solutions and intellectual services from other sectors.

• Innovative and participatory approaches are not the norm in policy and service design.

• Innovative and participatory approaches are embedded in policy and service design.

• Public servants can procure innovative solutions and services from other sectors.

• Through refinements to the strategic governance framework, establish guidance and capacity support on policy design which include how to incorporate innovative and participatory approaches, this could build on the existing service design principles.

• Scale up the efforts of the digital service design team and expand their capacity or introduce additional support to provide public servants guidance on the uptake of the digital service design principles and sludge methodology.

• Introduce a dedicated innovation procurement function, supported by procurement experts who can guide public servants through the procurement process for innovative solutions.

• Introduce an administrative burden reduction or stop bureaucracy initiative aimed at reducing the administrative burden of citizens and businesses. This can take the form of a calculation-based approach where administrative burden is calculated and then efforts taken to reduce it (Latvia, Croatia), crowdsourcing exercises to reduce administrative burden (e.g. Estonia) or a forum for businesses to report unnecessary administrative burden in areas such as regulation and compliance (e.g. Slovenia).

Digital transformation and innovation

• Digital transformation efforts are both an example and enabler of innovation.

• The digital service design principles provide strong guidance and norms on how to do human-centred, innovative and participatory service design.

• Digital transformation enables the delivery of accessible and user friendly services and provides an opportunity for innovative and participatory design and delivery.

• Best practices in digital service design are applied to in-person service delivery such as user research and monitoring.

• Introduce training on iterative service design (as exemplified in the emerging approaches to life events, sludge audits and integrated services) to service designers across the public service, based on the digital service design principles to ensure digital and traditional service delivery is user-centred and accessible.

• Increase the support available to public servants working on digital service design to ensure service design remains fair, inclusive, accessible and innovative. This could include scaling up the capacity of the ISAA service design team or establishing an additional support mechanism.

• Continue to support migration of all digital services to the common e-service delivery and life events platforms to enhance interoperability and improve user experience.

• Improve monitoring and evaluation of digital services, the Digitalisation Strategy and digitalisation efforts to understand impact. Make regular enhancements and communicate successes to the public, making the necessary adjustments to provide in-person services in areas where digital solutions may not be the best fit for some user groups.

Portfolio management and funding

• Limited dedicated funding is available for innovative initiatives and where funding is available, it is not always well known.

• Innovation projects are largely focused on improving existing efforts, minimal investment is made in more uncertain and future-focused initiatives, or efforts requiring significant collaboration across sectors (missions). Moreover, a lack of real time data on whether efforts are working is hindering adaptive innovation efforts.

• A diverse portfolio of innovation projects are funded and supported in order to achieve a range of strategic goals.

• The resilience, efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector is increase through a range of enhancement-oriented, adaptive, mission-oriented and anticipatory innovation projects.

• Funding for innovative initiatives is available and is being used effectively.

• Establish an innovation fund to finance a portfolio of innovation projects. The fund could be directed at financing projects from within the public sector, or non-governmental actors such as civil society organisations, academia, foundations or private companies. The fund should be accompanied by capacity building supports for recipients. This fund could follow a similar model to the existing Information Systems Management Board, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, which is a mechanism for ministries to submit digital projects for review. Project owners are required to build a business case to demonstrate the value for money of the initiative, prior to full solution development.

• Introduce training in innovation portfolio management for government executives to support a range of innovation investments that differ in risk, time horizon and degrees of certainty.

• Build capacity for strategic foresight and anticipation (either through training, recruitment of specialised professionals or establishing a foresight team) to increase levels of anticipatory innovation in the public sector.

• Increase levels of adaptive innovation by ensuring users are at the centre of all policy and service development initiatives. This can be done in numerous ways, including establishing mechanisms such as public – private partnerships (e.g. innovation clusters or working groups), participatory processes (e.g. co-creation of policies, improved stakeholder consultations) and introducing real time data monitoring (e.g. through a policy framework that includes monitoring and evaluation) to gather more accurate and up-to-date data on user needs and the impact of policies and services.

Evaluation and internal audit

• Monitoring, evaluation and internal audit capacity is largely absent, making it difficult to know whether initiatives are working and where innovation is needed.

• External audit is viewed as a punitive function and is not focused on outcomes, it contributes to a culture of risk aversion.

• All policies, strategies, programmes, regulations, services, innovations, participatory approaches etc. are evaluated to understand their impact and identify where innovation and change is needed.

• Through reforms to the strategic governance system, continue to support the development of evaluation capacity for policies, strategies, programmes, regulations and services to understand whether they are producing positive impact and where innovation is needed most. Ensure that any guidance on evaluation is accompanied by dedicated supports for teams conducting evaluations.

• Introduce training on how to evaluate different types of innovative initiatives (e.g. sludge audits, service redesign) or build a centre of expertise to provide evaluation services across the public sector.

• As internal audit capacity is increased, use the findings from internal audits to identify where innovative solutions could be developed to improve outcomes.

Enabling environment for CSOs

• CSOs in Armenia have a long history of contributing to education, health, social assistance, humanitarian causes, and political reforms in the country.

• CSOs suffer from a lack of capacity and professionalisation which can hinder their ability to effectively work as partners with the government.

• Other challenges include a lack of human and financial resources, limited access to funding, and a lack of guidance on national priorities.

• CSOs have access to a variety of funding sources from government funding to funding from private and international sources.

• CSOs have adequate capacity and skilled staff that are aware of national priorities

• CSOs are informed of opportunities to participate in policymaking and service design and delivery and can meaningfully engage to share their insights and expertise.

• Further improve registration procedures, by allowing online registration and providing channels for CSOs outside of Yerevan to register from where they are.

• Encourage access to new funding sources from private and international sources, in addition to existing government sources.

• Support CSOs in professionalising their functions and identify useful forms of capacity-building e.g. workshops on applying for and reporting on funding.

• Consider whether a standalone or integrated document on improving the enabling environment for CSOs would benefit the Armenian context. Developing an open government strategy with a dedicated component in this area could also achieve this objective. It is essential that such a document be designed in collaboration with stakeholders.

Citizen and Stakeholder participation

• In general, there is high-level commitment to citizen and stakeholder participation, with specific champions in certain public bodies.

• However, some public officials view participatory processes as “tick-the-box” exercises to fulfil legal obligations, and do not recognise the intrinsic value of such an approach.

• The legal framework provides for a variety of mechanisms aiming to involve citizens and stakeholders in the public decision-making process, including the electronic platform for access to information (e-request) and for public consultations (e-draft), as well as public hearings, civic councils, and other consultative bodies. However, implementation could be strengthened to ensure that participation is effective in practice.

• There is a strong focus on engaging organised stakeholders, such as CSOs, and less emphasis on engaging individual citizens in policymaking and service design and delivery.

• The participation agenda is guided by a dedicated unit for citizen and stakeholder participation in the Prime Ministry Office, which takes a leading role in raising awareness of the importance of participation for existing and incoming public officials.

• Guidelines, trainings, toolkits and capacity-building support public officials in fulfilling their obligations on participation and guarantee that all public bodies meet the minimum standard.

• There are dedicated officials as focal points of citizen and stakeholder participation in every ministry and public body.

• CSOs can actively shape policies, ensuring that their contributions lead to meaningful impact.

• CSOs and citizens are involved in the early stages (e.g. agenda and priority-setting) of developing policies or services and capitalise on their knowledge and expertise.

• Strive to reach a common definition and understanding of citizen and stakeholder participation, which would allow public bodies to work towards this shared vision.

• Undertake a stronger role in regularly monitoring the implementation of existing laws on citizen and stakeholder participation and issue annual reports on progress year-on-year. It could pursue disciplinary action with public bodies who do not sufficiently adhere to the law (e.g. on holding public consultations, on establishing a civic council).

• Beyond guaranteeing the full implementation of the legal, policy and institutional frameworks, the government could highlight the benefits of citizen and stakeholder participation to public officials given its ability to enrich, inform, and support their work.

• Ensure the necessary institutional arrangements to steer the participation agenda. This could include the establishment of the dedicated unit for citizen and stakeholder participation in the Prime Ministry Office.

• Further communicate and promote the overall vision for participation, as well as existing plans, strategies, and programmes in this area, to public officials and stakeholders alike.

• Develop a set of comprehensive guidelines for public bodies by outlining not only their obligations but also the opportunities for enhanced engagement, such as town hall meetings, public consultations, participatory budgeting, focus groups, hackathons, deliberative processes.

• Expand participatory budgeting and participation in the budget. The MoF should provide continuous communication and guidance to other line ministries throughout the fiscal year to receive updates on the process and further improve compliance. Continue to provide central funding for participatory budgeting.

• Further involve individual citizens, with more deliberative mechanisms in pilot policy areas e.g. education, climate or health, whereby the government assembles citizens from all parts of society to deliberate on complex questions, reach a consensus, and develop collective recommendations for decision-makers to consider.

• Unlock the potential of civic councils. Host a brainstorming session with all existing members of such civic councils at the national level as well as relevant public officials to discuss current barriers and areas of opportunities for further participation.

• Involve citizens and stakeholders at all stages of the decision-making cycle. Create more genuine spaces where CSOs can actively shape policies, ensuring that their contributions lead to meaningful impact. Involve CSOs and citizens in the early stages of developing policies or services and capitalise on their knowledge and expertise. Public officials should foster an “open call” approach when organising participatory processes, and/or allow CSOs to suggest which other organisations could be invited.

• Make participation processes more accessible and inclusive, by expanding outreach efforts to broader networks and alliances including newer, smaller, or grassroots organisations; community centres, local networks, and informal groups, and conducting visits to rural or underserved areas to directly engage with organisations and individuals in those regions. Make both online and in-person participation possible, testing digital platforms on a wide group of individuals to identify accessibility barriers, and considering difficulties for those living in urban versus rural areas to take part are essential. Additionally, hybrid models and partnering with local organisations can enhance outreach and engagement, and ensure the inclusion of diverse voices.

• Improve digital platforms. Particularly the e-draft platform could be improved by providing more detailed feedback and posting revised versions of the legal texts online.

• Build capacity to provide feedback to citizens and stakeholders. Develop a concrete methodology for gathering and responding to inputs, to ensure a systematic and harmonised approach with a template for how to manage and respond to different kinds of stakeholders and their inputs.