Imagine having to cross an unexplored desert. You know where you are and where you want to go; what lies in between, who knows. You'll need plenty of things — but the three without which you won't reach the other side are a compass, a team, and fuel.
Metaphors aside: when I talk about the Three Tools I don't mean three techniques, but three operational skills without which — in my experience — innovation in the public sector is simply not possible. They are what turns an idea into a repeatable journey, rather than a stroke of luck.
The compass: vision
The compass is the ability to define where you want to go when the path is unclear and the destination lies beyond the horizon. In a context of uncertainty and complexity, it is the only thing that keeps the bar steady.
The typical mistake, when it's missing, is confusing objectives with deliverables: you run to produce output, not to produce an outcome. It's what happens when a rebranding is approached the wrong way — starting from the logo instead of the identity that logo is supposed to represent. In our case it went the other way around: the idea of the INPS we imagined for the future defined the direction, and made it evident that the brand had to evolve to reflect it.
And beware: defining the vision is not enough — it must be defined collaboratively, with the people who share the journey, and then told: to the working group and to the organization. Because the vision is, typically, what an organization "buys".
The team: managing collaboration
The second tool is the ability to manage collaboration — not to collaborate always and everywhere. In the public sector every service crosses silos, levels and vendors, but that doesn't mean putting "everyone together" is automatically the solution.
The typical mistake has two opposite faces: either you design alone, discovering constraints and opposition too late; or you open a table with too many actors, and collaboration becomes a brake instead of an accelerator. Managing it means understanding when to involve whom, which decisions to share and which to keep lean, which moments to open and which to close: not "everyone, always", but "the right people at the right time".
When collaboration pays off — and when it doesn't — is something I formalized in a dedicated model: collaboration is not a silver bullet.
The fuel: sponsorship
You can be good, have an excellent idea, a great team and a wonderful vision: none of this guarantees you'll reach the other side of the desert. You'll probably build a nice pilot, a very interesting proof of concept — which then ends up in a drawer. The typical mistake is thinking that a good project "will impose itself". In the public sector it never does (nor anywhere else, truth be told).
Structural innovation needs two supports, together:
- Governance — a clear mandate from leadership that protects the journey;
- The operational base — the people who will have to apply the changes every day, and who must find them useful.
Because the middle layer of large, complex organizations is typically the resistant one: it has interests in the status quo — vendor relationships, processes, routines. But if you close it in the pincer of governance above and the operational base below, the result usually comes home. INPS's Experience Authority and UX strategy exist because there was explicit alignment between the top and the front line; without that double push, they would have remained exercises in style.
How real sponsorship is built
Real sponsorship — as opposed to formal sponsorship — is built by creating the conditions for people to contribute and support the project without feeling exposed or isolated. Four very practical elements:
- Listening — understanding why some people are cautious, why certain processes seem immutable, what risks are perceived by those who must sign an official act. If you don't understand others' points of view, you don't build alliances: you only produce friction.
- Aligning with the organization's real directions — sponsorship arrives when decision-makers see that what you propose helps reach goals they already consider important. Only after that alignment do you need evidence: prototypes, tests, targeted improvements. First you align the trajectory, then you prove it works.
- Operational clarity — people work better when they know what is expected of them and what their room for manoeuvre is. Being determined doesn't mean imposing: it means defining the direction and removing ambiguity.
- The quality of relationships — alliances aren't built with slogans but with reliability: don't discourage those who stick their necks out, recognize merit, protect people when they are trying something new.
Some call it "the strength of kindness". It is not being accommodating: it is the ability to create a context in which people don't feel challenged or bypassed — and are therefore more willing to consider a new idea.
In short
Compass, team and fuel are what makes innovation a craft, not a fortuitous stroke of genius. And they define, very concretely, a kind of leadership less tied to the visionary hero and more to the manager who knows how to build the conditions for change to be shared, repeatable and understandable — both by those who must back it from above, and by those who will have to deliver it every day.