From Fragmented Knowledge to Shared Solutions: Bridging the Institutional and Information-Analytical Gap Between Public Authorities and Social Innovators
I am honoured to take part in People and Planet Week (9–13 November), an international information campaign organised by the European community Catalyst Now, which brings together social innovators and representatives of the government and public sectors. The theme of this year’s initiative is Bridging the Gap. It focuses on reducing the gaps between different actors of social change and strengthening the role of social innovation in shaping public policy and management decisions.
As part of this initiative, I was invited to prepare an article for publication in European media outlets participating in the campaign. This invitation gave me an opportunity to explore one of the key challenges in modern society: under what conditions can the knowledge, experience and proposals of social innovators be heard, properly assessed and taken into account by public institutions?
Bridging this gap is not simply a matter of improving communication between public authorities and society. It involves a more complex process of cooperation between participants with different powers, professional backgrounds, sources of information, capacities and responsibilities. Social innovators can offer new approaches to solving social problems. However, the practical application of these approaches also depends on understanding the institutional context, existing needs, legal procedures and the actual capacities of public administration.
At the same time, representatives of public institutions work with specific tasks, clearly defined responsibilities, limited resources and accountability for the results of their decisions. This process becomes particularly challenging in the context of the war in Ukraine, where the long-term development goals of communities must be combined with the need to respond to urgent security, social and humanitarian challenges.
For this reason, it is important to see cooperation not as a conflict between public authorities and innovators, but as an opportunity to bring together different skills, expertise and sources of knowledge. Such cooperation can help us better understand social problems and develop well-informed and practical solutions.
To examine this issue, an interview was conducted with Vitalii Yuriiovych Nikipelov, Deputy Mayor responsible for the work of the executive bodies of Poltava City Council (Poltava, Ukraine). The discussion provided an opportunity to explore the practical perspective of local self-government and address issues such as strategic planning for community development, changing social needs, cooperation with the public and international organisations, legal mechanisms for public participation, access to information, digital transformation and the use of artificial intelligence.
The particular value of this interview lies in the opportunity to examine these issues not only from the perspective of an external observer or a social innovation initiator, but also through the experience of a representative of local government. This perspective helps us understand the tasks, limitations and practical conditions that shape institutional work, as well as the opportunities for cooperation between public authorities and social initiatives.
The aim of this article is to examine the institutional and information-analytical dimensions of the gap between public institutions and social innovators, based on the interview findings, and to identify opportunities for integrating different sources of knowledge into responsible decision-making processes.
Special attention is also given to the role of people in the context of the growing use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. The article introduces an original conceptual framework for Human-Centred Decision Intelligence, which views technology as a tool for strengthening human analytical capabilities, rather than replacing professional judgement and responsibility.
Research Methodology
This study is based on a qualitative approach and focuses on analysing the practical experience of a local self-government body in working with the public, social initiatives and other participants in social change.
The main empirical source was a semi-structured interview with Vitalii Yuriiovych Nikipelov, Deputy Mayor responsible for the work of the executive bodies of Poltava City Council. The questions covered institutional openness to innovation, mechanisms for public engagement, legal and information barriers, access to data, digital transformation and the potential use of artificial intelligence to support management decisions.
The chosen interview format made it possible to examine these issues through the practical experience of a local government representative, particularly in the context of strategic community development planning, changing social needs and the challenges of wartime.
The methodological aim of the study is not to measure the performance of local self-government bodies in quantitative terms or to establish universal patterns. Instead, it seeks to identify specific institutional and information-analytical aspects of cooperation, explore possible barriers and develop preliminary analytical conclusions.
The findings do not claim to be statistically representative and cannot automatically be applied to all local self-government bodies in Ukraine.
Institutional and Information-Analytical Dimensions
Cooperation between public institutions and social innovators is an important condition for finding solutions to complex social challenges. However, the existence of innovative ideas, professional expertise, social experience and formal participation mechanisms does not automatically mean that different participants will develop a shared understanding of a problem and turn proposed solutions into coordinated action. This challenge has at least two interconnected dimensions.
The first is the institutional gap. It concerns the opportunities and ways of cooperation between those who develop initiatives for the benefit of society and those who have the authority, tools and responsibility to make and implement public decisions. Even when communication and participation channels exist, an important question remains: how can a proposal be considered, assessed in relation to the needs of the community, compared with existing priorities and, under the right conditions, included in the practical work of an institution?
The second is the information-analytical gap. It appears when participants rely on different sources of information, professional knowledge, experience and evaluation criteria. The same social problem can be viewed from different perspectives. Access to information alone does not mean that the information is sufficient, reliable or understood in the same way by all parties. Therefore, the process requires not only data exchange but also a shared understanding of the context, information verification and agreement on which evidence is important when assessing possible solutions.
These two dimensions are closely connected. Institutional cooperation requires a shared understanding of the problem, while the integration of knowledge requires suitable conditions for dialogue, participation and responsible decision-making. For this reason, bridging the gap cannot be limited to creating additional communication channels, expanding access to data or introducing digital tools.
This study focuses on how these issues appear in the practice of local self-government. This analytical overview is based on information provided by Vitalii Nikipelov, Deputy Mayor responsible for the work of the executive bodies of Poltava City Council. His responses provide an opportunity to examine several aspects of institutional cooperation from the perspective of a local government representative. These include strategic planning, changing community needs, cooperation with organisations, citizen participation, access to information, digital transformation and the opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence.
It is important to note that one interview cannot provide a complete picture of all processes within a community or across the local self-government system in Ukraine. It is an individual qualitative source that makes it possible to explore the views of a particular local government representative and identify questions for further analysis.
Accordingly, the central research question is not how to overcome opposition between public authorities and innovators, but how to create conditions in which different sources of knowledge, professional skills and social experience can be integrated into the process of developing well-informed and responsible decisions.
Public Administration from Within: Strategic Planning, Changing Community Needs and Wartime Challenges
One of the important aspects of the interview was the discussion of how development priorities are defined in Poltava and how approaches to solving social problems are developed. In his response, Vitalii Nikipelov focused not so much on individual innovative proposals as on the wider system of strategic and operational goals.
According to him, a comprehensive city development plan called “Poltava 2030” was developed in Poltava. The document is currently under review and being updated to reflect changes in the administrative and social context. Fifty-five surrounding villages have become part of the community, expanding its territory and changing the range of responsibilities of local self-government.
Representatives of the executive committee, municipal departments and the public were involved in developing the plan. The work was carried out in cooperation with the German technical assistance programme GIZ. As the interviewee explained, the strategic planning process used approaches based on the experience of German cities, which he considers modern and useful for addressing social challenges.
This example is important because it shows that identifying community needs is not limited to responding to individual requests or proposals. It can be part of a systematic process that involves developing a long-term vision, setting priorities and engaging different participants in discussions about the future of the community.
At the same time, strategic planning is not a fixed structure. Its relevance depends on the ability to respond to new circumstances. This became particularly clear during the full-scale war.
Vitalii Nikipelov pointed out that, before the war, Poltava had not faced problems related to internal displacement on the scale it faces today. The city became one of the main centres for receiving internally displaced persons (IDPs). According to the data provided, 56,000 internally displaced persons were registered in Poltava in 2024, while the current number of registered IDPs in the Poltava territorial community stands at 47,572. This led to the emergence and growing importance of several social needs, including the need for social housing.
Therefore, changes in the demographic and social situation require a review of previous assumptions about the most urgent needs of the community. Needs that were previously less significant in scale or were not among the main priorities may become urgent. In this context, strategic management involves not only planning for the future but also regularly reviewing established goals in relation to real changes in the environment.
However, the interview also revealed another side of management reality: the need to act in conditions of immediate danger and urgent humanitarian needs. When asked which innovative solutions should be considered a priority, the interviewee gave an example of an event that had taken place approximately an hour and a half before the conversation. It was an air strike which, according to the information available at that time, had caused no deaths but had damaged six apartment buildings and five private houses. Windows, roofs and fences were damaged.
In such a situation, the immediate priorities of local self-government bodies are to assess the damage, identify the needs of affected residents, organise assistance and provide materials needed to temporarily cover damaged windows and roofs so that people can remain in their homes.
This example should not be seen as a sign of insufficient attention to innovation. On the contrary, it demonstrates the context in which local government operates during wartime. Alongside long-term planning, there are urgent tasks whose completion directly affects the safety and everyday lives of residents.
Thus, institutional capacity during wartime is closely connected with the need to maintain strategic priorities while responding to unpredictable events. This creates a complex challenge for any cooperation with innovators: proposed solutions must take into account not only the potential of an idea but also the actual priorities, time constraints and available resources of the community.
Another aspect of institutional cooperation emerged in the discussion about working with international organisations. As an example, Vitalii Nikipelov mentioned UNICEF and recognised the support it provides to the community, particularly in matters concerning children.
Among the examples of new approaches, he mentioned early intervention. This is a socially important support mechanism for children who have different needs related to their physical, psychological or emotional development or health and who require additional attention and assistance. At the same time, the interviewee specifically noted that he is not an expert in this field and has only limited knowledge of the subject, partly due to his professional background in law.
This example should be considered within the limits of the experience he described: cooperation with an international organisation provided an opportunity to learn about an approach whose importance became clearer through practical exposure.
It also shows that new social solutions are not always immediately recognised as clearly necessary. Understanding their value requires explanation, professional cooperation and an assessment of how well they respond to people’s actual needs.
Taken together, these examples highlight several different aspects of institutional activity: setting strategic priorities, involving the public in planning, adapting to changes in the social context, responding to emergencies and cooperating with international organisations.
For our study, it is important to understand that these different aspects do not exist separately. Together, they form the context in which proposals from social innovators must be considered. For such a proposal to become part of a practical solution, it is necessary to understand which specific need it addresses, how important this need is for the community, what institutional conditions are available for its implementation and how the proposed approach relates to other local government responsibilities.
From Formal Participation to Meaningful Cooperation: Legal Mechanisms and Community Engagement
One of the most informative parts of the interview was the discussion of mechanisms through which citizens can influence the work of local self-government bodies. When asked what he would like to change in the interaction between local authorities and social innovators, Vitalii Nikipelov noted that it is not always possible to identify one specific element that needs to be changed. In his view, current legislation already provides several mechanisms of direct democracy and citizen participation in local self-government.
In particular, he mentioned the statute of the territorial community and the public initiative mechanism. According to his explanation, a properly prepared proposal that includes a draft decision and the signatures of 250 community members must be submitted for consideration at a session of the city council.
This example is important because it shows that interaction between citizens and public authorities is not limited to informal discussions or the opportunity to express an opinion. It can also take place through established legal procedures that provide a formal way to submit proposals and require the relevant public body to consider them. Explaining the nature of these relationships, Vitalii Nikipelov drew attention to the difference between subordination, coordination and reordination.
In his explanation, subordination refers to relationships based on hierarchy and authority. Coordination involves cooperation between participants on an equal basis. Reordination allows a person or group involved in a particular relationship with a public authority to initiate the consideration of an issue, to which the authority must respond according to the established procedure.
Get Halyna Mykhailenko’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
As an example of this approach, the interviewee referred to legal regulations governing permit procedures for business activities. When the required documents and legal conditions are met, the possible grounds for refusal must also be clearly defined by law. According to his explanation, this limits the possibility of arbitrary decisions based on personal judgement and makes the procedure more predictable.
In this context, the existence of a participation mechanism is not the only important factor. The clarity of the procedure also matters: who can initiate the consideration of an issue, what requirements must be met and how the authorised public body is expected to respond.
At the same time, the interviewee did not claim that all social problems can be solved through formal procedures or algorithms. He acknowledged that some issues cannot be adequately addressed in this way.
He also highlighted the opportunity for civic activists and initiative groups to point out situations in which established mechanisms do not work or public authorities fail to fulfil their legal responsibilities. This observation adds an important dimension to the understanding of public participation. Its role may involve not only developing new proposals but also identifying gaps between legally established procedures and the actual practice of their implementation.
Another aspect of the discussion concerned the right to criticise and the freedom to make unusual proposals. The interviewee noted with humour that civic activists can sometimes be particularly active in pointing out what public authorities are doing wrong, while some proposals may seem strange or even absurd. However, he emphasised that this is a normal part of a democratic society: everyone has the right to express their opinion, and ideas that initially seem unusual can sometimes become a source of progress.
The important point here is not the evaluation of individual public proposals, but the recognition of the right to express alternative views and provide critical feedback. To develop cooperation between public authorities and society, it is necessary to maintain the opportunity to express different opinions, including those whose practical value may not be clear at the beginning of a discussion.
At the same time, having a legal mechanism for submitting an initiative does not mean that the proposed solution will automatically be implemented. There are several separate stages between the opportunity to express a proposal, its formal consideration, the assessment of its value and its practical implementation. This is where the need for high-quality cooperation, clear arguments and an understanding of the institutional context becomes particularly important.
From the perspective of this study, this leads to an important distinction: the right to be heard, the obligation to consider a proposal and the ability to jointly develop and implement a well-informed solution are different, although interconnected, elements of public participation.
Therefore, meaningful cooperation between public institutions and social innovators requires not only accessible participation mechanisms but also the ability of all parties to work with proposals, arguments, evidence and the possible consequences of decisions. This creates a basis for the next question: how can different sources of information and knowledge be integrated while ensuring their reliability, proper context and responsible use?
The Knowledge Gap: Data Access, Trust and Information Verification
Access to information is one of the conditions for making well-informed decisions. However, in cooperation between public institutions and social innovators, the key issue is not only access to data but also whether the necessary information exists, whether it meets the specific needs of a request and whether its reliability can be verified.
When asked about social innovators’ access to information held by local self-government bodies, Vitalii Nikipelov explained that the possibility of obtaining such data depends on the specific form of cooperation and the needs involved. At the same time, he pointed out that there are situations in which the required information simply does not exist within the institution. In such cases, additional data collection is necessary.
This clarification is important. The absence of the required data does not necessarily mean that an institution is unwilling to provide information. The reason may be that the relevant information has not previously been collected, has not been organised in the required format or requires additional work to obtain.
Therefore, information exchange involves at least two different tasks: providing access to information that already exists and organising the collection of missing data needed to examine a specific problem.
However, the interviewee drew attention to another issue that is particularly important during wartime: the need to verify the origin of requests and the reliability of information about organisations initiating cooperation.
He described a case in which a request presented as coming from a well-known international project was checked by the relevant authorities. The verification revealed that the organisation mentioned in the request did not exist. The interviewee expressed concern about possible intelligence-related activities, while also clarifying that he had not conducted this analysis himself and that the verification had been carried out by authorised services.
This episode does not provide grounds for general conclusions about international organisations or partnership initiatives. However, it demonstrates a specific risk highlighted by the local government representative: during wartime, verifying an organisation’s identity, the source of a request and the purpose of obtaining information may be essential for safe cooperation.
Therefore, openness to cooperation does not mean giving up verification. On the contrary, trust between participants should be based on clear procedures for identifying partners, confirming their legitimacy and assessing whether information requests are justified.
In a broader context, this allows us to distinguish between three characteristics of information that are important for decision-making:
Accessibility — whether a participant can obtain the required information.
Sufficiency — whether the available data contain enough information to examine a specific issue.
Reliability — whether the source of the information can be identified and its accuracy verified.
This distinction is an original analytical interpretation of the issues raised during the interview, rather than a classification proposed by the interviewee himself.
It is also important to recognise that different participants in social cooperation may hold different parts of the knowledge required. A local self-government body has its own institutional experience and information about community activities. Social innovators may contribute research findings, alternative approaches and practical experience. The public can provide knowledge about everyday needs and circumstances that are not always reflected in official data.
However, simply bringing these sources together does not guarantee a shared understanding of a problem. This requires examining where the information comes from, what exactly it describes, which circumstances it does not cover and how suitable it is for assessing a specific proposal.
In this sense, the information-analytical gap is not only about a possible lack of data. It is also related to the difference between information and its interpretation, between having information and being able to use it as a reliable basis for a decision. Therefore, effective cooperation between public institutions and social innovators requires more than simply exchanging information. It requires joint work to examine the origin, completeness, context and reliability of that information. This need becomes especially important when digital tools and artificial intelligence are used. These technologies create new opportunities to work with large amounts of information, but they also raise questions about the quality of sources, the objectivity of assessment and human responsibility for the final decision.
Human-Centred Decision Intelligence: Digital Opportunities, Critical Assessment of Information and Human Responsibility
The development of digital technologies and artificial intelligence is gradually changing the ways in which information is obtained, processed and used. For public administration, this creates new opportunities. At the same time, it raises questions about whether institutions are ready for digital change, how reliable information is, and how far decision-making can be delegated to technological systems.
During the interview, Vitalii Nikipelov acknowledged that digital tools and artificial intelligence are becoming an essential part of modern life. As an example of the positive impact of digitalisation, he mentioned the Diia app and the development of e-government, which, in his view, make life easier for citizens. At the same time, when describing the situation in Poltava City Council, the interviewee openly stated that the Council’s executive bodies are not currently leaders in digital transformation. According to him, a dedicated department responsible for digital transformation had been established relatively recently. At the time of the interview, the relevant programme and measures for its implementation were being developed. Some digitalisation processes had taken place earlier, but, as the interviewee noted, they had not been as systematic as the current stage of development requires.
The discussion of artificial intelligence revealed a cautious attitude. The interviewee acknowledged the potential of this technology but also noted that he did not yet have a full understanding of how it would be introduced and what role it would play in the future. He also pointed out that people, including representatives of public authorities, already use artificial intelligence to obtain information quickly, learn about specific issues and explore possible ways to address them. However, users may not always realise that they are interacting with artificial intelligence.
The discussion also addressed two possible directions for the development of these technologies: the gradual replacement of human involvement in decision-making, or the use of artificial intelligence as a tool to support human judgement, with the final decision and responsibility remaining with a person. Vitalii Nikipelov supported the idea that the final right to make decisions should remain with a human being. His argument was mainly related to the objectivity of the information provided by artificial intelligence.
According to him, technology can quickly collect and summarise information, but this does not necessarily mean that the results of its assessment will be objective. The interviewee drew attention to the risk of disinformation: if false information or a misleading narrative is repeated many times across different sources, artificial intelligence may treat it as reliable.
He also emphasised the vulnerability of such systems to information and psychological operations. In this context, his concern was not about the speed of information processing, but about the ability to distinguish true information from false information and assess the reliability of sources. This point is particularly important when artificial intelligence is used in public administration. Getting an answer quickly does not mean that the conclusion is reliable, and having a large number of sources does not guarantee independent confirmation of information. If different sources repeat the same false information, this repetition may create a false impression that it is reliable.
For this reason, the use of artificial intelligence in decision-support processes should involve a critical approach to the results it produces, verification of sources, consideration of context and the possibility of human review of its conclusions.
From Automated Answers to Supporting Human Judgement
Based on the issues raised during the interview, it is possible to identify a fundamental difference between automated answers and a human-centred approach to the use of intelligent technologies.
In the first case, the main focus is on the speed of information processing and the production of a result. In the second, technology is used to expand people’s ability to analyse information, compare alternatives, identify contradictions and assess possible consequences. However, it does not replace their professional judgement or responsibility.
This distinction is important for the concept of Human-Centred Decision Intelligence proposed in this article. The aim is not to transfer the authority to make decisions that affect society to artificial intelligence, but to create conditions for more meaningful interaction between people and different sources of knowledge and analytical tools. Within this approach, several principles can be identified:
- Humans retain the leading role. Technological systems can help analyse information, but they should not automatically replace human judgement and responsibility.
- Information needs to be verified. The results produced by artificial intelligence should not be considered reliable simply because they are delivered quickly or presented convincingly.
- Context matters. Assessing an issue requires consideration of the circumstances in which it arose and the specific characteristics of the community concerned.
- Different sources of knowledge should be compared. Institutional information, professional expertise, public experience and research findings can complement one another, but they all require critical assessment.
- Responsibility for decisions remains. The use of a technological tool does not remove the need to determine who assesses the results, makes the decision and is responsible for its consequences.
These principles are the author’s conceptual interpretation, developed on the basis of the interview and the research questions addressed in this article. They are not presented as a set of recommendations and do not claim to constitute a complete model.
Thus, the discussion of digitalisation and artificial intelligence takes the research beyond the question of the technological equipment of public institutions. It raises a much broader issue: how to ensure information quality, maintain critical thinking and preserve human responsibility in a situation where technologies increasingly influence the process of forming conclusions.
In this context, Human-Centred Decision Intelligence is considered a conceptual approach to integrating human competencies, different sources of knowledge and technological capabilities, while ensuring that humans retain their role in assessment and decision-making.
The article presented above does not claim to provide a comprehensive overview of the practices of all local self-government bodies in Ukraine. The interview is treated as an individual qualitative source that makes it possible to explore a specific institutional perspective, formulate analytical conclusions and identify questions for further research.
#BridgingTheGap#CatalystNow#HalynaMykhailenko#CodeOfDialogue#LinguoCoreLab#HumanCentredAI#SocialInnovation#CommunityIntelligence#DecisionIntelligence#AIForSocialGood#PublicSectorInnovation #PeopleAndPlanetWeek
