Collaborative competences for agile public servants: A case study on public sector innovation fellowships

2.1The need for collaborative competences for agile public servants

The public sector faces many challenges that create the need for openness and reforms. The adoption of agile practices is a key component in paving the way for these changes (Mergel, Ganapati, et al., 2021). With an increased focus on providing more innovative services and improving internal processes, agile practices have become a necessity for the public sector in recent years (see, e.g., Ribeiro & Domingues, 2018). However, the changes that go along with this development often meet resistance by members of public sector organisations (Malik et al., 2021; Moussa et al., 2018). The cross-functional collaboration and the development of competences that are necessary to adopt and apply agile practices can be hindered by rigid bureaucratical and hierarchical structures and traditions, as, e.g., Mergel (2023) suggests.

One factor that stands out in the discussion about agile public servants and proves especially difficult for the public sector, is the need for cross-functional collaboration and open communication (see Mergel, 2023). An agile public service requires new competences to implement these changes (Kruyen & Van Genugten, 2020). Successful collaboration in agile organisations requires competences that go beyond mere technical skills. Chinn et al. (2020) mention agile working as a subcategory of future skills for the public sector, while Mergel et al. (2021) define personal and subject-specific competences for agile public servants. A key aspect of these agile competences is their close connection to the ability to collaborate within the public sector. While some authors like Chinn et al. (2020) or Mergel et al. (2021) refer specifically to agile competences, in my research I highlight the connection between agile practices and the necessary competences and will focus on the broader category of collaborative competences.

For the public sector, Getha-Taylor (2008) breaks collaborative competences down into interpersonal understanding, teamwork and cooperation, and team leadership. Zakrzewska et al. (2020) also focus on competences that involve people, including, among others, self-reflection, communication, relationships and engagement, as well as leadership and teamwork, with the aim of contributing to innovation. For an educational context, Sanojca and Eneau (2016) define collaborative competences for different levels of collaboration, partly based on Morse and Stephens (2012), who allocate competences to different themes, but also highlight a collaborative mindset and openness as meta-competences. Based on these frameworks, self-reflection, teamwork, and openness for innovation are core elements of the competences public servants need. As these competences concern the roles and relationships within the public sector (Suter et al., 2009), their development needs to be built on reflection and interaction.

2.2Informal learning of collaborative competences in public sector innovation fellowships

Both quantitative and qualitative studies have shown that informal learning plays a significant role in developing competences in the workplace (Cunningham & Hillier, 2013; Elsen et al., 2022). Ipe (2003) highlights, that informal knowledge sharing is a significant part of personal development within organisations. Elsen et al. (2022) explain how social informal learning can foster competence development in the public sector. Since informal learning processes do usually not contain fixed learning outcomes and their evaluation, self-reflection is a significant part in sustaining the competences developed throughout the processes. In accordance to Schön (1987), this reflection is more closely related to individual competence development and rational thinking than to any specific discipline (Neumann Jr, 1999). Interactions and learning by doing have the potential to build competences that are relevant for public servants’ daily working life (Jeon & Kim, 2012).

So far, this interaction- and reflection-based development of competences is usually examined in the context of informal learning within the organisation, and is often even thought of as incidental (le Clus, 2011). Agile practices add a new dimension to this discussion, by inviting a deliberate outside perspective into a team. Stemming from software development, agile teams usually imply the involvement of external experts or specialists (Md. Rejab et al., 2015), creating a diverse environment to learn from one another. This is new for the public sector, where the literature so far mainly focuses on learning from service users in co-creation or co-production processes (Bancerz, 2021; Koivisto et al., 2015; Nardelli et al., 2015). External experts are thus often involved in public sector activities in their role as participating users or, as e.g. von Helden et al. (2012) observe, as consultants. Inviting external experts as participants in informal learning processes could provide new perspectives.

Fellowships can be a key format to open the door for such exchanges. In this format it becomes possible to bring external experts into a dedicated project. A growing interest in the role of interprofessional competences in medical research (see, e.g., Smith et al., 2022), for example, has led to research into how innovation fellowships might support the development of these competences, emphasising the connection between knowledge and its practical application (Prado et al., 2018).

So far, many programmes, such as the CoGenerate Innovation Fellowship (Halvorsen et al., 2023) or some Health Innovation Fellowships (Prado et al., 2018) focus on building successful leaders for innovative organisations. Others highlight students as the next generation of creative leaders (Whitney, 2018). Fellows in these programmes can be people from diverse backgrounds and demographic characteristics with a general interest in the respective field (see, e.g., Halvorsen et al., 2023) or professionals who want to further develop their competences (see, e.g., Prado et al., 2018). Fellowship programmes allow participants to connect learnings to organisational needs and practices (Cunningham & Hillier, 2013), while still acknowledging people as the agents of organisational learning. Both the individual and organisational learning processes take time. Fellowships may happen in iterations over two (Whitney, 2018) to three years (Prado et al., 2018) and the real effects might only become visible after 18 months or more (Smith et al., 2022). To truly make the effects of and the informal learning process within these fellowships visible, the public sector requires strategies to account for the long-term effects of inviting external experts into teams and organisations.

2.3Effects of informal learning on the adoption of agile practices in public organisations

Collaborative competences, agile routines, and the involvement of external experts have an impact on the organisational culture of the public sector, an aspect that is still not fully explored in the literature (Vries et al., 2016). Organisational culture and organisational structures in the bureaucratic public sector are often defined as barriers to, and not objects of, projects like public sector innovation fellowships (Cinar et al., 2019; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011; Zasa et al., 2020). Bommert (2010) presents these structures as barriers to be overcome by collaboration. Implementing informal learning processes into these structures may be a challenge, but can have a positive impact on organisational learning as prior literature has shown a complex connection between these processes (Antonacopoulou, 2006) Organisations are heavily influenced by how their members lead, work, and collaborate. That is why initiating learning within organisations and integrating new methods, such as agile practices, has been found to have an impact on job satisfaction, teamwork and management practices (Tripp et al., 2016). Al Saifi (2015) has focused the discussion of organisational culture on the intersection of knowledge creation, sharing, and application. Bringing informal individual and organisational learning together in innovation fellowships includes practical, reflective, and collaborative aspects, mirroring the elements of collaborative competences

While the literature shows these elements, studies tend to focus the categorisation and classification of collaborative competences (Chinn et al., 2020; Getha-Taylor, 2008; Getha-Taylor et al., 2016; Mergel, Brahimi, et al., 2021; Zakrzewska et al., 2020), leaving open how public servants may actually develop them. Aside from Getha-Taylor (2008) many of these studies do not target the public sector. While Morse and Stephens (2012) as well as Sanojca and Eneau (2016) focus on education, other authors (see, e.g., Zakrzewska et al., 2020) highlight the development of competences to enhance innovation in the private sector. Studies that have been looking at agile practices in the public sector so far have mainly examined the implementation of agile methodologies (see, e.g., Ribeiro & Domingues, 2018), not how their prerequisite competences can be developed through informal learning practices. This study can contribute to literature on public sector innovation by highlighting the process of informal learning to develop the competences that are needed for an agile public sector. To address this gap, I ask the following questions:

In the subsequent sections, I will answer these questions with insights from a case study, which provides practical perspectives on the informal learning of collaborative competences in the context of public sector innovation fellowships and the adoption of agile practices in public sector organisations.

3.1Context and structure of the case

The fellowship programme I observed invites experts on agile methods into the public sector to collaborate with public servants on innovation projects for six months at a time. The goal is to bring agile practices into the public sector and help public servants explore them through practical application within a pre-defined setting. The fellowships provide a project format, in which public servants and external experts can learn from each other and test different forms and methods of collaboration that are not typically applied in the public sector.

Yin (2018) suggests presenting a longitudinal case study chronologically. To achieve this, I will present a quick overview of the fellowship’s general outline and its main actors, followed by a chronological structure to show how the collaborative process throughout the two observed iterations of the fellowships worked.

3.1.1The fellowship process and its actors

The participation in the fellowship is a voluntary action that public servants with small projects from their respective ministry could apply for, leading to a preselection of generally open and innovative participants from the public sector. Every project then was assigned to an external expert from the private sector, who was to work together with the public sector in the project and throughout this collaborative process, make the public servants familiar with innovative, especially agile, methods by applying them to problems and processes within their work. Many of the external experts had backgrounds in personal and organisational development with a wide array of expertise from working in start-ups or big companies. They applied privately, either given leave from work, being in-between jobs, or being self-employed, and wanting to enhance their knowledge about agile innovation in the public sector. While familiarity with agile methods was a prerequisite for the participation of the external experts, their regular job and organisation did not play a role in the decision to accept them as participants of the fellowship.

The application and adoption of agile methods were a focus of the fellowship. Depending on the needs of the team, agile methods like Kanban, stand-up meetings, or timeboxing (Diebold & Dahlem, 2014), among others, could be applied. The fellowship followed a broad understanding of agile, which is also a reason why agile practices was chosen as a key term in this research, instead of the more specific agile methods.

The programme was accompanied by a team from the agency in charge of the fellowship, who not only organised the programme itself, and matched external experts and public servants, but also permanently took feedback and used it to improve the next iteration of the programme. Throughout the six months of the fellowship participants were continually invited to reflect on their process, potential issues arising in the collaboration, and to acquire new skills that helped them conducting a successful project, framed by a kick-off and final presentation with all participants. Figure 1 provides an overview of this process, the actors, and their interactions throughout the innovation fellowship.

Figure 1.

Structure of the case and its participants. Own depiction.

As an external observer I examined two years, i.e., two iterations of the innovation fellowship, in 2021 and 2022 respectively, observing one public sector team in a federal ministry. The public sector team took part in the fellowship two times with different projects and fellows, but the same core team of public servants. The project team worked together with fellowship teams from within and outside their department. To show this process, I will present insights from the first iteration (labelled as year 1) before showing the developments in the second iteration of the fellowship (labelled as year 2).

3.2Data collection

The data was collected in the form of observations and interviews. The different methods allow a qualitative explorative approach with deep narrative insights into the topic at hand (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Yin, 2018). At the start of every iteration of the fellowship programme the participants gave their informed consent to the study.

The active observation through participation in meetings and workshops is an essential part of public sector case studies in practice (Medina & Medina, 2017). Within my research I was able to observe two team meetings, two workshops as well as the two final presentations as a direct observer (Lüders, 2004; Yin, 2018). I attended the final presentation in person. All other observations were conducted online, via the digital platform the public service organisation used for their video communication. These observations were documented through observation protocols and additional field notes for the final presentations, handwritten notes were digitised after the observations. Altogether this resulted in six observation protocols with various lengths, dependent on the observed situation. The four observation protocols of team meetings and workshops documented formal aspects, such as the setting, duration, moderation, and number of participants, a description of the situation as well as content-related and atmospheric observations. The two observations of the final presentation described the overall setting and event in detail, with a special emphasis on the results and presentation of the observed fellowship team.

Interviews as a method often employed in qualitative public sector research and especially case studies can provide insights into explanations and personal understandings (Yin, 2018). Structured interviews with a duration between 25 to 75 minutes were mainly used to ask for the expectations, experiences, and learnings of the participants, following the tradition of Medina and Medina (2017) as well as Ferguson and Blackman (2019). These interviews took place at the start and end of the programme. Interviews with the external experts and public servants took place separately to allow for an open discussion. In the second year, the interviews were extended to another fellowship team who collaborated with the team from the studied case and also had prior experiences with the fellowship. Altogether, I conducted thirteen interviews over the two years, six of them with the public servants and seven with the external experts. Figure 2 shows an overview and timeline of the observations and interviews throughout the observational period.

Figure 2.

Overview of data sources throughout the examination period. Own depiction.

3.3Data analysis

To analyse the contents of the interview transcripts and observation protocols, I chose an abductive analysis approach. Abductive analysis allows to find surprises and generate theoretically useful insights from rich qualitative data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2022). It provides the opportunity for an explorative approach that allows for creative insights, mirroring the applied way of learning within the fellowship programme (Earl Rinehart, 2021). To achieve this, I followed Timmermans and Tavory’s (2022) approach of focused coding. Based on initial codes derived from the literature, a first overview of the data during the collection process, followed by a thorough reading of transcripts, I was able to derive and cluster themes within the data as qualitative codes. The codes were continually adapted throughout the coding process to account for new and surprising insights provided in the interviews. Table 1 shows the themes and codes used to analyse the interviews and observations.

The structure comprising initial interviews, observations, and follow-up interviews not only clarified certain observations but also tracked shifting perceptions and methodological knowledge. The analysis was conducted with analogue modes (sticky notes for noteworthy themes and their clustering) and with the help of digital tools (NVIVO for coding, Obsidian for documenting context and connections) to harness the full potential of the coding process.

4.1Developing collaborative competences throughout the fellowship

One of the central goals of the innovation fellowship programme is the development of methodological competences. However, public servants and external experts also defined certain skills as a prerequisite for participating in the fellowship: “Communication skills, curiosity, or openness to new things” (I5)11 together with a “willingness to learn, (…) a bit of courage” (I10), and long-term thinking were deemed competences that a public servant participating in the fellowship should have. External experts should especially bring openness and understanding towards the public sector as well as curiosity and proactivity. This was highlighted by the public servants, who expected a negative bias of the external experts towards the public sector. Overall, they perceived an impact of their learnings on the individual mindset and organisational culture: “And perhaps one must also have the courage, it ultimately involves a bit of a cultural shift, a change in attitude and such, which is difficult to measure and doesn’t happen overnight” (I11). Reflecting on which competences they developed was a difficulty for the public servants, since measuring competences like openness and communication is generally a difficult task (Heckman & Kautz, 2012), and explicitly articulating their learnings in the interviews posed a challenge for the public servants.

Still, due to their repeated participation in the fellowship, the public servants and their extended team were familiar with agile practices in the second year. Despite stating that not many new methods were learned or competences enhanced throughout the second iteration of the fellowship, the description of follow-up activities made it clear that the public servants (unconsciously) applied agile methods and processes within their work “and [that] the foundation for this has been laid with the fellowship” (I11). Additionally, participants were able to establish a long-term relationship and the basis for a better cross-departmental communication and collaboration: “One learning is indeed that the [fellowship] or any kind of collaboration is always beneficial because you simply have someone who can suddenly look at things from an external perspective” (I5).

4.2Drivers and barriers of informal learning in the fellowships

Especially in the first iteration, public servants involved in the fellowship reported that they acquired a solid understanding of and proficiency in the use of the tools and methods they were introduced to, such as Kanban, daily and weekly stand-ups or timeboxing. However, there were challenges in adopting some methods, especially in managing the flow of information and sticking to strict time schedules. Nevertheless, these challenges were seen as valuable learning experiences, as public servants highlighted the opportunity and need to put these learnings into action: “[I would like] to simply emphasise: try it out. Test, test, test” (I11).

Drivers. A key aspect the public servants highlighted was the active participation in the fellowship process: “I believe one must also take the time every now and then” (I12). Sufficient resources in the form of time and personnel, a positive perception of innovation and openness towards cultural change have been identified as success factors by the public servants. They mentioned the need for a different working culture and more openness for new methods and procedural changes among their colleagues. At the same time, the public servants perceived their own role of participants as multipliers in the organisation, which is supported by the far greater outreach of the activities in the second iteration of the programme.

The research has focused on individual experiences in the collaboration between the public servants and the external experts. But another driver mentioned was the support public servants received from within their organisation. Participants of the fellowship had an inherent motivation to partake in the process and implement their project. But to achieve this they needed support from superiors, which could range from general verbal support or sharing the project, to active advancement of the project. In the hierarchical public sector even a visible positive attitude of leaders could help embed the fellowship in the organisation and legitimise its results.

Barriers. Despite the prevailing success of the projects, they encountered a variety of barriers when trying to learn from each other:

Table 2 shows an overview of drivers and barriers of the informal learning process in the fellowship. Recognizing and addressing these barriers is essential for making successful collaboration and learning throughout the fellowships possible.

4.3Effects of the fellowships on the agility of the organisation

This project marked the first formal cross-sectoral cooperation within the fellowship programme. This cooperation was still ongoing and was being further developed at the end of the fellowship: “yes, we definitely want to continue working together and we now meet virtually every two weeks, and beyond that, we exchange updates on the current status [of our projects]” (I12). By inviting external experts into the public sector, the fellowship contributed to the understanding and adoption of agile practices and increased collaboration. Public servants highlight the increasing openness of their organisation as a key aspect of the fellowship: “So what’s also exciting for me is that we truly have a new approach here in the realm of administration, which is usually a very closed system and that we’re actually bringing in fresh ideas from the outside, trying to establish them” (I11).

In contrast to the understanding of these tools they showed in subsequent interviews and the optimism they portrayed throughout the second iteration of the fellowship, public servants expressed concern about the sustainability of implementing these new methods, especially in their regular work. They had reservations about how well these methods would work in the long term but at the same time highlighted the need for “what is always very important in public administration, an organisational sustainment” (I11).

Figure 3.

Overview of the findings. Own depiction.

The consolidation of this process requires time, patience, and organisational networks. Figure 3 shows how collaboration in innovation fellowships fosters practice-oriented, reflected, and connected public servants, leading to individual learning, which again has positive effects towards a learning organisation. The felllowships make this application, reflection, and the formation of new networks possible, which leads to a learning process (Antonacopoulou, 2006; Prado et al., 2018), allows the development of new competences and, as a result, the implementation of agile practices.