From One-off Projects to Ecosystem Thinking: How Local Governments Can Rethink Innovation

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization. 

By Josemaria Salazar Fernandez
June 20, 2025

Every week brings a new innovation to local government. From AI chatbots and interactive dashboards to pilot programs, municipalities are constantly launching fresh initiatives that aim to demonstrate responsiveness, agility and creativity. But as these one-off projects accumulate, they often leave behind a fragmented governance landscape, one where residents must navigate overlapping services, agencies compete for attention and innovation itself becomes performative.

What if the problem isn’t a lack of innovation, but how we innovate? The Ecology of Games (EG) framework offers a way to reframe local government innovation. Instead of viewing each initiative as an isolated solution, EG encourages us to see them as part of a complex, interdependent system of policy arenas, each with its own actors, rules and incentives, but all deeply connected.

Developed by Long and later refined by Nabatchi, Berardo and Lubell, the EG framework sees governance as both structurally and functionally complex. Structurally, it comprises overlapping forums with different rules and issue scopes; functionally, it supports cooperation, learning and the distribution of resources. Crucially, these elements are co-evolving, meaning disruption in one “game” may create ripple effects or inequities across others.

In local government, EG reveals a hidden challenge: new initiatives are often launched without consideration for the existing ecology of governance. Take, for instance, a city with three major projects underway:

• 
  

  A digital equity grant pilot to expand broadband access

  
  
• 
  

  A climate dashboard built in partnership with a university lab

  
  
• 
  

  A neighborhood planning initiative funded by a state grant

  
  

Each of these “games” is valuable in its own right. But without intentional coordination, they can generate confusion, duplication or even competition for limited community attention and administrative capacity.

In Toronto, Canada, multiple smart city initiatives were launched almost simultaneously. The city’s digital infrastructure upgrades, Sidewalk Labs’ Quayside smart neighborhood pilot and a separate city-led data governance consultation each aimed to modernize urban systems. However, these efforts were criticized for poor coordination and fragmented engagement. Overlapping public meetings and conflicting data governance frameworks led residents to question transparency and the role of private actors. Sidewalk Labs ultimately withdrew in 2020, citing governance and regulatory complexity as key barriers. Here, EG reveals how disconnected “games” can create institutional friction, weakening collaborative potential across initiatives.

In Barcelona, Spain, the city deployed a suite of civic technology platforms: Decidim supported participatory democracy, Sentilo managed urban sensor data and separate smart mobility pilots aimed to optimize transportation. Though each project promoted citizen input and transparency, their lack of integration produced confusion. Residents didn’t know where or how to engage and departments operated in digital silos. The failure to align participation mechanisms undermined democratic goals and technological trust.

In Jakarta, Indonesia, digital platforms such as PetaJakarta.org for flood mapping via Twitter, Qlue for citizen complaints and Jakarta Kini for real-time urban data were launched by different actors with minimal coordination. While each served a different function, the lack of interoperability led to data redundancies, public confusion and weak integration into policy decisions. Agencies struggled to synthesize inputs and residents were left unsure which platform to use. In EG terms, these disconnected arenas diluted feedback loops and reduced the capacity for shared learning across systems.

In all three cities, well-intentioned initiatives sought community engagement, collected data and convened meetings, often within weeks of one another. Yet none coordinated their efforts, aligned timelines or shared findings. And even more concerning, the EG framework warns that such fragmentation can produce institutional externalities, when decisions or resource flows in one initiative inadvertently undermine or distort outcomes in another.

So how can local governments do better?

First, they can begin by mapping the policy ecology before launching new initiatives. Who are the players already working in similar spaces? What forums or processes are already in place? What institutional rules shape the environment and how might new efforts complement or disrupt them?

Second, they can shift from isolated innovation to ecosystem-aware innovation. This means asking: Will this project strengthen coordination across existing efforts? Does it open or close important feedback loops? Are we promoting institutional learning or reinforcing silos? Are we expanding access for under-resourced actors or deepening participation gaps?

Third, local governments should evaluate innovation not only by its outcomes but also by its connectivity and fairness. A truly innovative initiative does more than deliver services; it reshapes how institutions interact, share information and solve problems together in ways that are more inclusive.

Finally, the EG framework calls for a change in mindset: moving away from innovation as a signal toward innovation as adaptive infrastructure. Cities can begin with small steps, such as conducting “EG diagnostics,” which are lightweight assessments to identify overlapping initiatives, underrepresented voices and coordination gaps across the policy landscape.

Innovation in local government is still essential, but it must evolve. EG reminds us that governance is never about a single project, pilot or agency. It is about the dynamic interplay among all of them. Without designing with that interconnected reality in mind, even the most promising ideas risk becoming just one more disconnected effort in an already crowded field.

---

Author: Josemaria Salazar, MA, MPA. He contributes to the development of the AI Climate Platform at I2UD, a data-driven tool that helps governments in the Global South assess climate risks in informal settlements. Open to collaboration: connect with him at https://www.linkedin.com/in/salazarjosemaria/.

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...