by Carla Cordoncillo Acosta and Mireia Borrell

Collaborative innovation is gaining recognition as a critical strategy for public organisations, especially when addressing complex “wicked” problems. These challenges demand fresh thinking, and collaboration—particularly in diverse teams—can make all the difference. By bringing together varied perspectives, policymakers can unlock creative solutions that might not emerge in isolated decision-making. Working collaboratively not only expands the range of options but also makes thinking “outside the box” more productive and impactful.

Despite its promise, the concept of “collaborative innovation” is still mostly grounded in theory. Empirical studies are limited, and when they do exist, they often rely on case studies that lump all forms of collaboration together. This approach overlooks the nuances of different collaborative arrangements and makes it difficult to understand how specific types of collaboration contribute to innovation. Some research hints at distinctions among setups, linking them to innovation in theory, but no one has systematically compared their actual impact.

This is where our study steps in. For policymakers to truly harness the potential of collaboration, they need clear evidence about which actors to involve and how. In our recent article published in Policy & Politics entitled “Fostering innovation through collaboration: A comparison of collaborative approaches to policy design”— we examine the innovative potential of different collaborative arrangements. As expected, we find that collaboration—whether within government or with non-public actors—is a game-changer. But there’s a catch: not all contributors bring equal value to the table. Some actors possess greater capacity to innovate than others.