Introducing Innovative Systems in Managing U. S. State Government

Date01 September 1971
DOI10.1177/002085237103700306
Published date01 September 1971
AuthorRobert D. Lee
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-17hG3zNVqIRDIY/input
Introducing Innovative Systems in Managing
U. S. State Government
by
Robert D. LEE, Jr.,
Assistant Professor,
Institute of Public Administration,
UDC 35.047:65.012.6
The Pennsylvania State University
Attempts at reforms, innovations, or changes
2.
There has been too much stress on detail
in decision-making have been fundamental to
and not enough on the broader picture.
the history of government. A key problem
3.
Most spending plans focus on the
-
if not the key problem -
has been how to
agencies and their subdivisions rather
make governmental systems responsive to the
than on the functions performed and
needs and demands of the public, how to
.
programs projected.
provide a political system which rather than
being static is dynamic in confronting changes
4.
Organizational objectives are seldom well
in the social order. One primary
defined in
area of con-
specific measurable terms.
cern for managing government has been
5.
The structural organization of the execu-
budgeting. Such is appropriate considering
tive branch is not well-adapted to
that virtually all activity results in expenditures
current needs.
of resources. It is through the budgetary
6.
Use of the budgetary process to im-
process that government may
be controlled, and
perhaps
prove operational effectiveness falls far
more importantly that government can
short of its
be managed to be responsive to
potential...
.
new needs
stemming from the society.
7.
The puzzling problem of achieving
rational balance in
Yet the ideal budgetary
allocating scarce
system and, more
resources
broadly, the ideal decision ;making system
among competing functional
fields... remains unsolved
have
(2).
not been realized.
If this were not the
case, then the efforts of the past ten years to
Worth questioning is the extent to which
install planning-programming-budgeting sys-
these criticisms have been mitigated by attempts
tems (PPB) would have been unnecessary.
to install PPB. There is reason to speculate
The components of PPB being far from new
whether any significant change has occurred (3).
creations of the 1960’s are prima facie evidence
that preceding reform efforts have been failures.
Moreover, the fad of PPB has faded in the U.S.,
(2) Committee for Economic Development, Bud-
especially since the beginning of the Nixon
geting for National Objectives (New York : CED,
Administration, and
January 1966), pp. 12-13.
one inevitably wonders
(3) A sizable literature has developed around the
when the next &dquo; new &dquo; effort to reform public
recent efforts to develop PPB systems. See U.S.,
budgeting will begin.
Congress, Joint Economic Committee, The Analysis
and Evaluation of Public Expenditures : The PPB
The issues involved in government budgeting
System, Volumes 1-5, 91st Congress, 1st Session, 1969.
have changed little in several decades (1).
Implementing PPB in State, City and County (Washing-
The 1966 report of the Committee for Economic
ton, D.C. : The George Washington University, 1969).
Development, Budgeting for National Objec-
Also, the Public Administration Review has been a
major outlet for PPB articles. See the symposium,
tives, catalogued the weaknesses of budget
"
Planning-Programming-Budgeting System Reexam-
systems, and these are the same weaknesses
ined ", Public Administration Review, XXIX (March/
that have been itemized many times before.
April 1969), pp. 111-202. Edwin L. Harper, Fred A.
Kramer, and Andrew M. Rouse, " Implementation and
1.
There has been too little attention to
Use of PPB in Sixteen Federal Agencies ", Public
longer-range planning.
Administration Review, XXIX (November/December
1969), pp. 623-32. Stanley B. Botner, " Four Years
of PPBS : An Appraisal ", Public Administration
(1) For a summary of budget principles, see Carl
Review, XXX
(July/August 1970), pp. 423-31. Lauber,
"
A. Murray, Classical Principles in Modem Govern-
John G., PPBS in State Government-Maryland’s
ment Budgeting ", International Review of Adminis-
Approach, State Government, XLII (Winter 1969),
trative Sciences, XXXVI, No. 2 (1970), pp. 109-14.
pp. 31-37.


379
This article leaves begging the question of the
changes as distinguished from minor ones.
extent of change that has occurred but instead
Gore, in differentiating routine and adaptive
reviews some of the problems associated with
decisions from innovative ones, suggests that
the introduction of changes in decision-making
innovation involves &dquo; a major change in
systems. Particularly, the focus is upon the
activity and operation which leads to a change
means by which change in organizational
in goals, purposes, or policies &dquo; (6). This
decision-making can be planned, or alternati-
apparently is similar to Lindblom’s &dquo; root &dquo;
vely, the focus is upon management’s capability
approach or Simon’s &dquo; nonprogrammed &dquo; ap-
to introduce change. The overall approach
proach (7). Still other authors make relatively
taken in Pennsylvania to reorient the decision-
little attempt at defining innovation (8).
making process is discussed as one method for
Some scholars have distinguished innovation
introducing change in U.S. state government.
from other concepts but then explicitly use
interchangeably such terms as change, innova-
The Concept of Innovation
tion, reform, adoptivity, and creativity (9).
Though
The
an extensive literature is developing
potential typologies for classifying
around the general topic of organizational
innovation are seemingly limitless. Diamant
innovation, the field is largely chaotic and is
has
a
proposed that innovations may be in
jumble of often unrelated concepts and data.
regard to ends, means, power distribution, and
What is innovation, how
heuristic
can it be achieved,
processes (10). In more tangible
how can change or innovation be measured,
terms, bureaucratic changes may come in the
and what
form of
are the correlates of innovation are
developing new objects such as space
just
vehicles and
a few of the most critical unanswered
computers, rearranging organ-
questions associated with this
izational units such
area of research.
as agency reorganizations,
or
altering relationships and procedures.
Much of the confusion originates from the
Innovations also may vary in terms of the scope
lack of any agreement as to the definition of
of coverage within the organization, namely
&dquo;
innovation&dquo;.
This absence of consensus
whether the change is restricted to one or a few
necessarily curbs the development of a coherent
subunits or instead reaches all segments of the
and coordinated effort to understand organ-
organization. Innovations also can be treated
izational innovation. For instance, no con-
in terms of their intended effects upon indivi-
sistency has been achieved in relating innova-
duals. Not only can there be variations in the
tion to the creation and adoption of new ideas
number of people affected, but individuals may
and/or products. Argyris defines innovation
be expected to change their physical behavior
as a creative process in which new techniques,
and their attitudes and thought processes as
products, et al. are developed, though he
well.
simultaneously tends to equate innovation with
risk taking (4). The latter would involve
Since there is
ex-
no recognized standard
ploring the unknown but does not necessarily
definition of innovation, there necessarily is no
entail inventing new approaches to problems or
inventing new products. At the same time,
this concept of risk taking is closely associated
(6) William J. Gore, " Decision Making Research :
with another definition of innovation, namely
Some Prospects and Limitations ", Concepts and Issues
in Administrative Behavior, ed. Sidney Mailick and
the adoption of new ideas as distinguished
Edward H. Van Ness (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey :
from their creation. In this instance, creativity
Prentice-Hall, 1962), p. 57.
and innovation are treated as different con-
(7) Charles E. Lindblom, " The Science of Muddling
cepts (5).
Through ", Public Administration Review, XIX (Spring
1959), pp. 79-88. Herbert A. Simon, Administrative
Another approach has been
Behavior
to label inno-
(2d ed.; New York : The Free Press, 1965),
vation
pp. 79-109. Also see James G. March and Herbert
as something involving fundamental
A. Simon, Organizations (New York : John Wiley and
Sons, 1958), pp. 173-210.
(8) Rufus P. Browning, " Innovative and Non-
(4) Chris Argyris, Organization and Innovation
innovative Decision Processes in Government Bud-
(Homewood, Illinois :...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT