Table 2 Conducive conditions for innovation cited by interviewees
From: Innovation in mental health services: what are the key components of success?
CONDUCIVE FACTORS | OCCURRENCE % (n) |
|---|---|
Context | Â |
The skills, knowledge and experience of the project team, especially the project champion | 91% (10) |
Supportive team | 73% (8) |
The project was aligned to the core business of the host organisation | 73% (8) |
The project champion's position within the system | 55% (6) |
Independent organisation which was external to statutory services | 55% (6) |
A team working towards a common goal | 45% (5) |
The provision of a safe environment for service users | 45% (5) |
Sustained management 'buy-in' or support at all levels | 45% (5) |
The small size of the organisation and a flat team hierarchy | 45% (5) |
The forward looking/innovative nature of the host organisation | 27% (3) |
Strong networks, e.g., links with local and voluntary organisations | 27% (3) |
The project builds on the work of an existing project | 27% (3) |
Support for the project from national policy drivers | 27% (3) |
Organisational control is devolved to hosts or project champion | 27% (3) |
Effective partnership working (trust and respect developed) | 18% (2) |
Process-outcome | Â |
The assertive and committed actions of the project champion. | 100% (11) |
The positive role of service users (when service user involvement is active) | 100% (11) |
The support from the funding body (financial and non-financial) | 100% (11) |
External validation from funding body through provision of funding, national policy priorities, organisational vision etc | 73% (8) |
The positive role of staff within, or outside of, the host organisation | 73% (8) |
Flexibility of delivery | 55% (6) |
A constellation of supportive individuals within, and outside of, statutory services | 45% (5) |
Open and direct channels of communication. | 45% (5) |
Full documentation of project activity (including contact with authors) | 45% (5) |
The project was not focussed on therapy per se but encourages social interaction and provides access to future activity | 45% (5) |
Power differences reduced between service users and providers | 36% (4) |
The versatility and scope of the project | 36% (4) |
The value and strength of original idea | 36% (4) |
The strength of the intellectual input into the project | 27% (3) |
Processes for embedding and link with other internal systems (e.g., curriculum development) | 27% (3) |
Structure/stability of sessions for service users | 27% (3) |
The use of non-traditional roles in delivering the project and allowing artistic freedom for service users | 27% (3) |
The long-term strategic outlook of project from the outset | 18% (2) |
Project allows therapeutic distance between service users and providers | 18% (2) |
The project arose from an identified need | 18% (2) |
A relationship of trust develops between artists and staff | 18% (2) |