59the public manager | Winter 2013

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

� e state of New York operated with revenues close to $206 billion in 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In that same period, North Dakota citizens received services based on revenues of $5.5 billion. Th is diff erence in resources (see Figure 1) does not excuse a municipality from providing basic ser-vice to its citizens. It does, however, set the stage for a battle against innovation.

We are naturally averse to spending on perceived non-necessities dur-ing periods of lean budgets. Most people do it with their personal disposable income. Most politicians who believe re-election is essential follow the same rule. So why expect a resource-strapped municipality to fall out of line? Th e city of Richmond is no exception.

I am serving in the city of Richmond for one year with a fellowship from an organization called Fuse Corps. My role is to apply my entrepreneurial background to local government. Specifi cally, I am charged with being innova-tive in tackling multiple low-income problems that contribute to a 23 percent poverty rate. Within a year I will develop a structure for these solutions to exist and a support system for them to live through the following two years.

During the second month of my fellowship I attended a Mayor’s Inno-vation Summit in Philadelphia. It was there that I spoke with mayors from

if i could make a plan work in the Department of Social Services, then other agency directors in the city could use these methods. if it works in the city of richmond, then it could work in other cities and agencies.

Scaling Innovation:Applying Entrepreneurism to Local Governmentby thomas houston

WWW.thepublicmanager.Org60

Alexandria, Virginia; Madison, Wisconsin; Louisville, Kentucky; and Hallandale Beach, Florida. Through those conversations I realized that Richmond was not alone in its struggles to implement innovation. I knew that my methods toward success were applicable to other municipalities and government agencies.

Lending to Other CitiesAs I was looking at success through a 36-month lens, I focused on scalable innovation. If I could make a plan work in the Department of Social Services, then other agency directors in the city could use these methods. If it works in the city of Richmond, then it could work in other cities and agencies of the same size or smaller.

The idea is simple. Create a three-step archetype in anticipation of duplication. Step one: Learn from large city success stories. Step two: Embrace the little bets. Step three: Pursue leadership’s vocal support of the ini-tiatives upfront.

Borrowing from Other CitiesIn 2008, the first large-scale bicycle-sharing program arrived in Washington, D.C. By 2014, such cities as Des Moines, Iowa; Boulder, Colorado; and Omaha, Nebraska, will contribute to this initiative that boasts more than 50 city partners (see Figure 2). These smaller cities allowed Washington to work out the kinks of dock-ing stations, pay systems, and ridership. The cost asso-ciated with the learning curve was born by a city that had the ability to absorb the growing pains. Thus when smaller cities joined the movement they were able to

focus their resources on implementation and stage two innovations such as reduced bike rack infrastructure due to GPS tracking.

The city of Richmond took the same approach in its effort to provide low-income residents access to retail locations that accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Originally, the city used a program called snapfresh. The application pulls location data from the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s SNAP retailer locator database and sends it to requestors in a digital top five list. The list is based on proximity to what-ever ZIP code, or address, is provided in the application.

Although it’s a good tool, it lacks personalization. More importantly, by using it Richmond is relying on the hope that a stand-alone application has the resources to last as long as we need it.

I am uncomfortable with this reality. I wanted to build something that felt like Richmond. Unfortunately, I had no access to a coder because the city doesn’t staff one and a budget didn’t exist to hire one. But the City of Philadelphia has a coder—and he created a personalized site called Phillysnap for the city.

I reached out to Philadelphia Director of Civic Tech-nology Tim Wisniewski, who was willing to help Rich-mond use Philadelphia’s model to create its own SNAP tool. He tweaked Phillysnap and delivered a 2.0 version that now allows Richmond to configure the file to point to our ArcGIS server via a config file. Now Richmond’s information technology department can implement a resource that helps citizens at a fraction of the cost, time, and headache of attempting to start from scratch.

Figure 1. Key State Earning and Expense (2011)

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

AlabamaCalifornia

FloridaGeorgia

LouisianaMassachusetts

MichiganNew York

North CarolinaNorth DakotaPennsylvania

TexasVirginia

WashingtonWest Virginia

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

total expenses (in millions)

total revenue (in millions)

61the public manager | Winter 2013

Embracing Little BetsA business strategy proposed by James Collins and Jerry Porras in their book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (Harper Business Essentials, 1994) says that an idea too large to implement with ease scares people. However, a small step feels attainable. Peter Sims concurs in his book Little Bets. He suggests that smaller ideas allow individuals to discover, test, and achieve affordable activities. These “little bets” together develop a pattern of wins. This pattern develops a roadmap. That roadmap is what gets people excited.

Building a history of wins is important to advancing a project that has to move within a 12-month timeframe. At its core is the need to create a bandwagon that people aren’t afraid to jump on. My main project in Richmond was to introduce to the city a program called AuntBer-tha. This implementation involved getting the Depart-ment of Social Services to buy into the concept of using an external tool to make recommendations to city resi-dents. Local organizations needed to buy into the idea that more customers don’t mean overwhelmed resources.

Nobody wanted to touch it. So instead of introduc-ing it as an all-inclusive tool I worked with each cog in the wheel of success independently.

As each partner would gain something different from AuntBertha it made sense to emphasize the portion of the tool that benefited their needs the most. After six months of taking small steps, making small bets, the application is funded, operational, and being used not just across the city but regionally in the greater Richmond area.

Pursuing Leadership Support UpfrontAs a child, my mom told me not to ask her for some-thing in front of my friends because the answer would always be no. She said that the two of us should have those discussions in private so that we were on the same page in front of company. The same principle applies to implementing change in an organization, govern-ment agency, or municipality. Rolling out new initia-tives without the view of management support upfront breeds fear.

In a Rosabeth Kanter article titled, “Ten Reasons People Resist Change” (Harvard Business Review, 2012), she says it is not that people are afraid of more work or even the glaring admission that whoever implemented the previous initiative no longer controls the shiny object. It’s that change may reveal real threats. To minimize the discomfort of change, Kanter suggests that organization

leaders, not project leaders, must be honest and transpar-ent about the change.

For example, as part of a new process, I developed a customer service survey to find opportunities for change. Management did not share the decision to implement the customer-focused, month-long on-site survey with employ-ees of the agency. Initially there was quiet panic. There was no motivation to request customers to participate.

If leadership had taken time in the beginning to share the goals of the survey employees would have understood that it was about available resources and not their perfor-mance. Even though a significant portion of customers participated in the survey, the final count could have been double and employee morale could have been saved.

Following the Plan to Make Innovation ScalableRichmond recognizes the shortage of resources. However, to transition from a tier 1 to a tier 2 city this cannot be an excuse. Instead, the shortage must lead us to a focused approach to problem solving.

As many governments look for a magic solution, look to the city of Richmond. By learning from large-city suc-cess stories, embracing little bets, and partnering with peer cities, they can see similar levels of success. And the best part is that it can be replicated.

Thomas Houston is a strategic marketer with more than 10 years of Fortune 100 advertising, innovation, and team building experience. He also has served as an adjunct professor of marketing and consumer behavior at the University of the District of Columbia. Contact him at execute2025@gmail.com.

Figure 2. Bike-Sharing Programs in the United States, 2007-2014

note: 2013 and 2014 are projections.

num

ber o

f pro

gram

s

Source: Earth Policy Institute

Figure 2. Bike-Sharing Programs in the United States, 2007-2014Austin-the author sent two originals, ideas for re-creating

Number of ProgramsNote: 2013 and 2014 are projections.0102030405060

20072008200920102011201220132014

Source: Earth Policy Institute, (May 2013)

Austin—I am also including these values that can help you make the graph precise.

Number of programs Projected Programs2007 1 2008 2 2009 2 2010 7 2011 15 2012 21 2013 26 182014 26 27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

20142013201220112010200920082007