An analysis of innovation frameworks with a focus on Pentathlon Framework for government and public sector applications

Frameworks are essential to ensure all necessary actions and steps are taken into consideration while managing a process or program. Similarly, innovation frameworks such as the Pentathlon Framework provide the foundation for innovation management. It is also a great tool to align people with diverse backgrounds and experiences to more academically correct and commonly accepted views. As mentioned in the Innovation Management: Effective strategy and implementation (1), innovation is most likely to be associated with the initial steps (ideation) of innovation management.

Moreover, the framework’s linear approach to innovation, although some loops and cycles throughout the framework, provides traceability of the innovation process and helps companies/people understand where there is a need for focus to improve the overall outcomes.

When we focus on the Pentathlon framework’s strengths, the first strong suit is to define the innovation process straightforwardly. The overall organization and critical contributors to the innovation process could easily align around it. This will help to establish the innovation culture and understanding in the organization effectively. The second most significant advantage is that it provides traceability on the innovation process and gives organizations the capability to manage the process through gates and certain well-planned activities to ensure success in each framework’s element.

On the other hand, there is always a downside for all frameworks; Pentathlon is not an exception. The two weaknesses are the overlapping effects of the different framework elements I will call out: the interdependencies of the framework’s components and the collaboration limitations. The first one is culture’s effect on the ideation element, the criticism culture, and is a hierarchical organization that would restrict the idea generation. The employees will not be able to voice their ideas, or their views will not pass the hierarchy levels. The second weakness is the process focuses on one organization, and in the era of open innovation and collaboration, this framework doesn’t provide the necessary mechanism to move forward.

Based on my experience in the government and public sector, the framework will provide a good value since the innovation hasn’t been managed as an end-to-end cycle till recent years, at least in the middle east region. Although there have been efforts on ideation and investment on ideas to create successful implementations due to lack of end-user engagement and clear performance metrics on the outcomes, there is a lack of implementation success.

Moreover, the culture of government entities is also creating a barrier to success. Due to the political influence of the innovation process, especially at the selection of ideas, citizen value and happiness could be less prioritized when compared with the likeliness of the high-rank government employees to the ideas.

Also, the business case and sustainability of the innovation efforts could not be calculated due to no commercial pressure of citizen services; no or limited competition to services provided will also limit the innovation culture.

Another point that we could see in entities in the government and public sector, the successful implementation of ideas will be very much limited since the innovation strategy will not be clear to define the direction, and the trend of applying the successful benchmark countries solutions are always will be prioritized when it comes to citizen services.

From the armed forces, I believe there is more room for cultural support and space for innovation. Since all the governments are trying to create a competitive advantage in the military field to gain influence and power over other countries, there has always been innovation, research, and development efforts historically in place for these fields’. Based on the long history of the urge for innovation and the nature of security in these fields, the Pentathlon methodologies’ application could be more successful.

Work cited: Goffin, K., & Mitchell, R. (2017). Innovation Management: Effective strategy and implementation (3rd ed. 2017 ed.). London, England: Springer.