Cross-case comparison

This table provides an overview of the individual levels of autonomy graded on a three-point scale of Low-Medium-High, adapted from Nokkola & Bacevic (2014). All five dimensions of autonomy have been covered. It elaborates on the dimensions of autonomy in each case.

Case A Case B Case C Case D

Structural Autonomy

LOW: The innovation unit is embedded deep within the parent agencies HQ; working towards further embedding.

HIGH: Sits deep within many layers under a programme bureau. Purposely shifted away from HQ to give a high level of Structural Autonomy.

HIGH: Two streams of innovation. One internal, embedded inside the agency and one external. The external innovation team is structurally positioned outside the parent agency. There is little communication between the two streams. As a result, high Structural Autonomy.

HIGH: Three distinct innovation teams sit at the heart of the agency. These feed into the innovation unit. The innovation unit sits within HQ under the executive director.

Strategic Autonomy

LOW: Senior

management provides strategic direction. The Structure makes communication between the innovation unit and senior management extremely easy.

LOW: The innovation Unit has its own strategic direction.But is in constant need of top- down support. Re-alignment is provided by the innovation board, which is comprised of senior management. MEDIUM: Multiple instances of strategic re-alignment with the mandate of the UN parent agency. Instances of the mandate being strategically constraining to the innovation unit. MEDIUM: Strategic direction and mandates are well defined in the innovation teams. Influenced in both a top-down way (senior mgmt) and bottom-up (Country offices).

44 Financial

Autonomy

MEDIUM: The unique split of innovation staff funding ensures that there is a 50-50 stake of innovation teams and country offices. This Gives the innovation unit some autonomy whilst increasing the impact of the work.

MEDIUM: A different type of co-funding structure in which the parent agency funds innovation staff positions; and a public sector partner (gov), fills the gaps.

HIGH: The innovation unit is completely financially

autonomous; vis-a-vis the parent agency. Whereas the internal innovation team is funded via core funds.

MEDIUM: Innovation teams have core funding via the parent agency and

partnerships. There is a clear trend towards more financial autonomy (see: Team X & Team Y)

Job Autonomy

HIGH: Day to day decision making is relatively free of constraint.

HIGH: Day to day decision making is relatively free of constraint.

HIGH: Day to day decision making is relatively free of constraint.

HIGH: Day to day decision making is relatively free of constraint.

Functional Autonomy

LOW: The innovation unit is striving to be streamlined completely within HQ. This phase of transition means, there are less dedicated capabilities that the innovation team provides. Innovation as a service is what distinguishes the team.

HIGH: Clearly defined functions where the innovation unit will take the lead (E.g. Technical Advice, R&D). Similar clarity on where the UN parent agency takes the lead.

MEDIUM: The innovation unit is comprised of

functional consultants, bringing in major expertise from the private sector. External functions (E.g. Legal Affairs) are provided by the Parent Agency.

HIGH: Each innovation team has a clear function. Therefore this clarity means less intrusive micro- management from the parent agency

Overall Autonomy & Ambidexterity

There is Low overall autonomy and a lack of ambidextrous

management. Innovation is managed by HQ as another streamlined service that the UN agency in Case A provides.

Most similar in its design to corporate ventures in the private sector.

Ambidextrous management is assisted greatly via clear definition of functional roles; and the overall role of the innovation unit.

There are two innovation units, each with its own

relationship to senior management. 1) One is embedded within HQ. This structural embeddedness assists communication with senior management. Contrary to this, 2) The innovation unit has very high levels of overall autonomy with little input from the Parent Agency.

Innovation has been streamlined along the spine of the UN parent agency. This approach has created a space where the innovation teams have high autonomy overall.

Comments The embeddedness is indicative of a constrain on the innovation unit’s capabilities, but decision-making is fast. The unit also has a high level of clarity and satisfaction vis-a-vis the work of the innovation unit.

Requirement of Top- down support is crucial in this model. A lot depends on how supportive the senior management is towards innovation.

The difference between the two streams in Case C and three teams in Case D, is the lack of

communication and integration of the two streams.

The Innovation unit has good leverage due to its position in Parent agency HQ; Further the three teams are well connected as they feed into the main

innovation unit; and all innovation is open sourced.

Table 12: Cross-case comparison (long)

45