Introduction

The new socio-economic, political and cultural conditions have had an impact on the approaches to innovation in public management. Therefore, the civic know-hows, whose components are civic engagement, civic intelligence, social control and collaborative participation, have become the main elements of modernization in public management. Starting from the position that we must "innovate Public Management Innovation", it is possible if seen as the agreements of governmental actors, citizens and non-state actors to identify public issues, as well as tools and different mechanisms for achieving new responses and solutions in the public sphere.

On the other hand, the democratic procedures of interaction of these stakeholders in a relational public management framework reconfigure the relationship between government and society, hence generating the required collective learning for a quality and inclusive management. In other words, the aim is to build networks of abilities and know-hows where resources and different actor's expertise are combined for a co-innovation. This premise will be inferred throughout the article when addressing each one of the components of the civic know-hows and the relationship between them.

First of all, these know-hows are everything there is and everything we know about democratic coexistence, rights and duties as citizens, as well as structures, functions and state and government's means of power. They constitute the conception of the citizen's knowledge corresponding to its level of democratic culture. Meaning to be willing to participate in-person as well as through the information and communication technologies (ICT) in rational discourse with the intention to generate a sort of non-delegated power from the citizens, with which it can be asked how people could take part in the public life, exercising their rights toward the government for the co-creation of public value.

From this point of view, we suggest to place the civic know-hows in the middle of public management, since governments nowadays tend to be understood as democratic participatory platforms.¹ This work prioritizes the analytic approach of civic know-hows in the light of the component's display and the way in which its analysis works to set out a type of participative innovation in public management. We affirm that in order to innovate and increase legitimacy of public management innovation it is required to democratically involve citizens and non-state actors.

The objectives of this article are: 1) to analyze the components of the civic know-hows as legalizing elements of participative public management innovation; and 2) to determine the general guidelines of the complementary relationship between the components of these civic know-hows and the public management. Throughout a theoretical review in order to examine how civic engagement, civic intelligence, social control and especially collaborative participation have been discussed in the literature, the interaction framework of these concepts is presented besides how they relate to innovation and public management.

Discovering the civic know-hows in order to strengthen innovation in public management

For the purpose of this work, innovation in public management is understood as the recognition for the citizens and non-state actors' creativity and results in their relationship with public officials. In other words, the citizens' participation is essential in this view so as to differentiate it from the classic approach of management innovation based just on the processes and the use of technological tools as an end. (^{Mulgan and Albury, 2003}; ^{Windrum, 2008}).

Innovation constitutes, in this sense, the implementation of an improvement process or new management related to three areas: 1) the product, good or service (the introduction of a new service, the improvement of the quality of an existing service); 2) operative process (alterations or changes in the way to provide public services); and 3) the organization or management process (changes in organizational structures management practice and routines) (^{OECD, 2012}).

In this sense, efficacy and efficiency have been pursued through quality improvement and government innovation based on the following foundations of total quality: customer satisfaction, continuous improvement of the processes and personal development. The concept implementation of this concept resulted in the rearrangement of the organization's traditional adjustment, leading to changes such as the privilege of enterprises and government's financial results. Moving to quality product and focusing on the public sector, the operations' economic efficiency, and the rigorous balance of public finances; also focusing on productivity and approaching the products to the customers making the product an integral component of the service, thus reaching the competitively dimension for quality products.

On the other hand, it can be seen that the internal administration that characterized the weberian administration, has been widespread among the users of the organization's goods and services and concluding a public administration without public and a government without citizens (^{Aguilar, 2006}).

Unlike the management innovation concept explained above, we aimed for a public management innovation concept were civic know-hows are the core of the analysis regarding that their work is carried out based on the engagement of the citizens with the government, therefore enabling civic intelligence, control management improvement by the social audit, likewise the shared idea about the public sector, as collaborative competencies for the authentic achievement of governments' efficacy and efficiency.

In this way, innovation in public management is depicted focusing on two directions: 1) to arrangements of citizens, governmental and non-state actors which allow to identify public issues besides the tools and innovative mechanisms in order to achieve new answers and solutions in the public sphere; 2) as a consequence of the latter, the democratic forms of interaction of the stakeholders in the public sphere create a new configuration between government and society ensuring collective learning and the required civic know-hows for a quality inclusive management.

Hence, public organizations build more relationships, public management becomes more participative and throughout their administration, public policies are more deliberative in the agenda-setting, more inclusive in the contribution of solutions (design), and more collaborative stakeholders in the process of implementation. (^{Peters, 2014}). This, in order to achieve citizen satisfaction which is defined, according to ^{Im and Lee (2011: 420)} , as "the combination of general and subjective assessments of the experiences people have with public services, which include not only feelings or opinions about 'objective services', but also judgmental evaluations".

The distinguishing characteristics of innovation based on civic know-hows and managerialist innovation can be summed up as follows: whereas in the former, the type of satisfaction is related to the citizens, in the latter it belongs to the customers by the continuous enhancement of processes, products and services. Another feature is learning.

The innovation with participation in the management generates a kind of collective learning among public officials and citizens, given the sort of relational, flexible, and inclusive public management. In managerialist innovation, learning occurs only among public officials, achieving a relational aspect, but not inclusive. In terms of participation in management, in innovation with civic know-hows, public officials create opportunities to engage the citizens using these opportunities to educate, organize and activate the civil defense, creating a legitimacy criterion based on innovation co-production; whereas managerialist innovation just provides a market framework focused on the delivery of the public service or product to the 'customer', and its only legitimacy are its results (Table 1).²

In this context, innovating in public management must go hand in hand with the strengthening of democratic institutions (^{Rizvi, 2008}) as well as the societal relationships and these among the government. "Innovation exists when certain kinds of problems don't have existing answers. The stakeholders must get innovative solutions to their problems given the institutional insufficiency" (^{Harrison and Klein, 2007: 8)} . Thus, in order to fill this gap the civic know-hows are appealed in order to complete and spread the public sector's potential. This is to say, to build competencies and know-hows networks in which stakeholders' resources and expertise are combined for the purpose of co-production (^{Fung, 2008}).

With the purpose of gathering the society's requests, an innovative public management requires enterprising public officials for organizations prepared for diversity, adaptation and reinvention. In this sense, the entrepreneurship can be seen as the key to innovation based in civic know-hows and it helps creating opportunities and taking advantage of them in order to improve its implementation in public organizations. ^{Mothae and Sindane (2013: 117)} define it as "the development of a new business within the context of the large public organizations. Public officials, through intrapreneurship, become entrepreneurs in their respective public sector organizations."

In other words, as defined by ^{Goldsmith et al. (2010}), the entrepreneurship, represented as the spirit of enterprise, and civic virtue (the spirit of community), are required.

The civic know-hows in public management innovation become important aspects of innovation itself. For this to take place, the four components must be interrelated and even more connected with democracy. There are the democratic innovation processes in public management as a part of the democratization of the political system on one hand, and on the other the citizens' right of participation in public management. Each component of the civic know-hows will be analyzed in further detail below.

The logic of civic know-hows in collaboration processes

^{Michels (2011: 280)} identifies four types of democratic innovation improve collaborative participatory and public management:

a) Referendums give individual people a direct vote in political decisions; b) participatory policy making, characterized by a clear relation with decision making in the sense that citizens and stakeholders are asked to advise the government; c) deliberative surveys, these are the individual opinions on which citizens are asked about a particular issue, and d) the deliberative forums, understood as forums designed with the aim of being deliberative, which means that the focus is on following the ideal deliberative procedures; opinion formation and the exchange of arguments are more important than decision making.

Regarding collaborative participation in public management innovation, participation defined as the process to settle specific issues in order to find common solutions or to converge unlike attitudes toward a shared effort (collaboration in the public process, policy and decision-making). Therefore, when speaking of public decisions, participation means to take part in public management. In this way, participation is synonym of intervention of interests, of concern that implies willingness, a sense of belonging to a collective, a group, a town, a federal entity, a country. It is also important to state that the citizens and organizations that participate in the public sphere need to connect with similar ones in a contact network that allows the creation of contents, information exchange, experiences and to carry out common projects.

This statement settles citizens and civic society as the place for finding new legitimacy sources and other consensus opportunities based on tolerance, debate, collaboration and dialogue. This latter, understood as a means to logically channel the ideological plurality. It becomes the key for participation as different citizens, political and government actors can express their ideas, beliefs, researches, conclusions, experiences, etc. through it, with the purpose of coming to an agreement, and finally making a decision that will affect in a positive/negative way, directly/indirectly the government policy (^{Barber, 2004}).

Hence, governments with a modern public view can face the challenge of participation: "to shape interactions between the multiple actors involved in the identification, design and implementation of a policy. This means that the current challenge in administrative modernization is not the improvement of organizations' competency and efficiency, but to modify their mind-setto replace their self-centered logic for an unselfish one" (^{Brugué, 2005: 4)} .

In collaborative participation, the ICT, best known as Web 2.0, is an important tool that shows that people are well-informed about everything and when given the opportunity of gathering around a network and in groups, they can be efficient in problem solving and not just in making judgements about them. This explains what ^{Noveck (2010}) says: collaboration is a form of democratic participation that is egalitarian -but egalitarian in a different way than the traditional understanding of the term. The changes made by globalization processes have created a network society resulting in a different perception of participation based on collaboration (^{Castells, 2008}; ¹⁹⁹⁹).

The fact that people is well informed makes them to be willing to participate with their skills, knowledge, experiences, information and enthusiasm to support the management and public policy; therefore, an innovating management will set up the mechanisms and Smart institutions to make use of technology and connect with the citizens, thereby making collaboration an open participation that "is merely a kind of public participation through interactive communication tools such as blogs, microblogs or social networks. It is mainly based on the expression of social media to connect people and help them sharing their ideas" (^{Cusba, 2012: 119)} .

This new technological generation (Web 2.0), created through the use of the social media, is established on the basis of three required components to understand the new role of next-generation technologies inside public administrations:

On one hand individuals become the principal actors of creation organization addition, combination, interchange opinion and assessment of web contents; on the other hand, in a Web 2.0 environment, innovation in the public sectors linked to the public outside the conventional limits of the organization; and to end, Web 2.0 expresses a transformation in value creation processes since people can carry out several activities that in the past required the intervention of an expert, a bureaucrat, a company, a political party, etcetera (^{Criado, 2013: 3}).

It is precisely here where we need to understand the meaning of information capital, essential for the articulation of a public management innovation platform. Regarding this capital as a tool to drive innovation based on civic know-hows because it analyzes relational data in public management as a specific link between the two types of generated information (in-person or virtual), and the actor's role around it. It characterized by the citizen's role in the appropriation process and the institutional operation of networks.

From the latter, this question is raised: which are the democratizing and civic effects of information capital? First, information is made available in the sense that data becomes public value. This means a transparent relationship between citizens and government in which this last guides its work to the interests of the people, incorporating them accordingly to the interactive process of public services. The second democratizing effect is that information networks allow citizens and non-state actors to collaborate in the process of public policy making and decision, and at the same time they can demand the accountability to the authority (^{Mariñez, 2015}; ²⁰⁰⁹).

In this way, the collaborative participation is more engaged with the civic matter tan with the classic participationist view which is disconnected from decision making and public policy. Hence, collaborative public participation is a civic know-how used to achieve the goals of the innovation in public management, serving as a means for "power redistribution that allows the citizens, currently excluded from political and economic processes, to deliberately participate in the future" (^{Harrison et al., 2011: 4} ).

In this sense, Vigoda (cited by ^{Dougherty et al., 2011}) suggests

the necessity of an improved model of collaboration in which citizens and public administrators are partners. Under the "citizen as partner" model, government agents are responsible for defining strategic and empowering citizens via training and coordination of voluntary citizen activities. (^{Dougherty et al., 2011: 522} ).

Procedure of collaborative participation for civic know-hows activation

The new logic of collaborative participation requires the connection, the dialogue, the association and exchange to build decisions and legitimate public policies. It refers to a participation included in a new correlation between government and citizens which needs a different procedure using for that the strength of institutions for public developments with civic know-hows. (Table 2).

But to achieve institutional strength there are issues to overcome like the setting up of technical, institutional and political were inbound threats and opportunities are a key factor. According to ^{Bardach (2008}) the technical issue includes aspect like resource acquisition, design and application of an operating system (that is, a system to perform base level tasks), the creation and maintenance of a communications network and the environmental disposition of (justified) reliance , the empowerment and legitimization of an implementation process (governance) and a team of individuals to execute it. Concerning institutional and political challenges it is important to have an institutional design which enhances work amongst agencies (departments) and between these and citizens.

With the previously mentioned components, collaborative participation may be expressed through a combination of inclusive activities and articulated which imply total change of the organizational and management of governmental agencies both centralized and decentralized. A culture of innovative development in a public organization implies co-innovation, collaboration, co-creation, transparency, integrated communications, horizontality and a new institutional vision in the implementing structure of management itself and of public decisions based on argumentation, communication models and governance. (^{Peters, 2014}).

Based on ^{Lukensmeyer et al. (2010}) there are three participation categories which include the different activities of collaborative participation:

In this way two kinds of participation are the most common: Citizen Councils and rule production schemes.

It is important to point out that these forms of collaborative participation are deeply linked with civic engagement as well as the abilities of public servants and the civic know-how of the citizens. Regarding public servants "important is who is representing an organization, agency, or jurisdiction at the table and whether they have the necessary skills to be an effective collaborator." (^{O'Leary and Vij, 2012: 515} ). Referring to civic know-how, the diverse kinds of citizen and community projects are taken into consideration to motivate and coordinate multiple efforts of public and social innovation.

Following this approach to innovation ^{Eggers (2009}) proposes a set of competencies and abilities with an attitude toward collaboration for public servants: ability to associate, influence and negotiate, interpersonal abilities, creativity and innovation, awareness of the external context, entrepreneur, conflict resolution and conflict management. And so public servants should be able to create structures, processes, practices, communication norms, patterns and other innovation management in the government which nowadays would not be obstacles for an inclusive networking government but key players in this process (^{Fountain, 2005}).

As a conclusion

This article explains from the beginning the importance of civic know-hows in the innovation of public management. It stablishes that the analysis center of innovation in public management must go hand in hand with the democratic strengthening just as the civic and societal know-hows of the citizens together with governments. Thus the know-how become substantial aspects of governmental innovation because civic engagement, civic intelligence, social control and collaborative participation allows the growth that entrepreneurism which is in need of competencies and abilities that generate the capability to resolve public issues adding value to the work of the public sector where a lot of talent and effort in or around public management is available to overcome these challenges.

Sustained in this article's objectives detailed in the introduction and making a theoretic revision to analyze how has the civic engagement, civic intelligence, social control and most of all collaborative participation been discussed, we have built a frame of interactions amongst these concepts and also the way in which they relate to public management.

In doing so we have perceived innovation in public management in two directions: first to the agreements of citizens, government and not government workers which allow to identify public issues and also new tools and devices to respond and solve problems in a public setting. Second, as a consequence of this the democratic modalities of articulations by these public management performers resulting in a new setting between the state and society that assures collective learning and civic know-hows needed to achieve quality and inclusive management.

Therefore, the components of the civic know-how are fundamental democratic parts to achieve innovation in a participative public management. As to civic engagement we have stated that innovation in a participative public management requires several kinds of citizen dialogue and debate that should be inclusive to make public policies and decisions. In this way inclusion is important when we speak of civic engagement its goal it to provide people with a sense of direction to make associative and community activities be heard by the government and contribute to better decision making. Civic engagement is an essential point of citizen participation that assures every citizen carries out their civic, political and social rights.

In order for civic engagement to take place it is important that citizens use their civic intelligence, another one of the civic know-hows, because it allows citizens and groups of society to create and implement efficient, equal and sustainable strategies to share public problems and solutions. In this sense citizen take advantage of web 2.0 tools to acquire resources, knowledge, experience or time (open collaboration) for co-creation of public decisions and that's the civic part of civic intelligence for innovation of public management.

Taking as a starting point that innovations in the organization, process and the distribution of public services must be monitored and evaluated by citizens and their organizations. As we have remarked using social software we could develop a series of applications with the purpose of increasing communicative possibilities and networking with others. This collaborative tools that link a group of people to facilitate the information flow (schedules, messages, complaints) and the creation of collaborative work amongst them (shared monitoring of public policies).

That is why we proposed four axis that make social control more effective: collective transparency, organization and the capabilities of citizen, access to information and the axis referring to public affairs which implies all the participants that intervene in the production of public value are subjected to be controlled by their actions.

This leads us to set participation in the logic of collaboration because using the web 2.0 citizens become protagonist of creation, organization edition, combination, exchange, commentary and evaluation of web content and also in the making of social networks where they interact and connect amongst them. Also in the web 2.0 environment innovation in public management is linked to the public that is outside of the formal limits of the organization and it not only has the power to create information and content but also to evaluate them continually. Another element used by collaborative participation is that through Web 2.0 transformation in the value creation process is expressed because people may perform several activities that previously required the participation of a professional, a bureaucrat, an organization, a political party, etc.

With innovative management aimed this way other democratizing axis such as transparency, personal responsibility and access to information will be activated. But at this work stablishes challenges are needed like the building of the technical, institutional and political process to face incoming threats and opportunities which work as active articulatory elements between citizens, government and not government workers. These elements are the ones that imprint a significant political change in the way to govern trough innovation in participative management.

We have observed several theoretical-practical challenges in innovation of public management based on civic know-hows. The success of this kind of innovation is related to the degree in which the organization is aimed at it and not just a part of it. This leads us to ask the following questions: what kinds of public organizations are innovative and who conducts this innovations? How does the public sector innovate organizations and how do they get access and use the new knowledge generated by coproduction and co-creation? What public servants does public management requires to structure, organize and promote innovation in public management? In public management and governments which carry traits of patriotism, lack of professionalization and opacity, these innovative tendencies are pushed by civic know-hows as sociopolitical management practices.