## 5 Discussion
### Prioritizing Challenges: Survey Results vs. Network Analysis  
We aimed to better understand the key challenges and how they were prioritized according to two different analysis perspectives: survey results and SNA. Figure 4 illustrates the ranking of challenges based on survey results conducted by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [14], which employed a Likert scale to gauge participants' precautions. The percentages reflect the proportion of respondents who rated each challenge as important, based on the combined selection of \"Strongly Agree\" and \"Agree\". In contrast, our study identified the most critical challenges using eigenvector and betweenness centrality measures derived from the correlation coefficients between challenges. While the survey highlights participants' perceived priorities, our network analysis offers a complementary perspective by revealing the structural significance and interdependencies among the challenges. Together,these methods offer a deeper insight into the factors shaping innovation-related challenges. These two approaches provide differing perspectives on the importance of challenges, with the survey results emphasizing perceived priorities and the network analysis uncovering structural influence and interdependencies. The survey is particularly useful for identifying and ranking challenges. It provides a clear understanding of the most immediately visible or pressing challenges for respondents. For example, C10, \"Managers' tendencies to avoid risk\", was ranked with the highest percentage in the survey at 82%, reflecting its strong perception as a challenge. Similarly, C20 \"Lack of integration between government entities for shared services\" ranked second at 79%, indicating its perceived importance for collaboration. However, despite their high survey rankings, these challenges were not identified as critical in our network analysis. This is because challenges such as C10 and C20 have lower structural influence, as they are not strongly interconnected with other challenges nor pivotal for driving innovation across the government entity. Conversely, the network analysis provides a more appropriate method for ranking challenges that should be tackled first to address interconnected issues and systemic challenges. Some challenges identified as critical in the network analysis were ranked lower in the survey. For instance, C18, ranked at 71% in the survey, was critical in the network due to its high centrality measures, indicating its pivotal role as a structural connector. Improving coordination and communication fosters better collaboration across departments, which helps address related challenges like unclear processes and resistance to change. Similarly, C21, ranked at 68% in the survey, emerges as critical in the network because it establishes a framework that aligns innovation efforts and provides a structure for addressing other challenges. Formalizing processes can reduce confusion, improve accountability, and create a foundation for implementing new initiatives. Challenges such as C15 and C17, ranked at 61% and 68%, respectively, in the survey, are identified as critical in the network due to their centrality and the impact they have on organizational effectiveness. Resolving overlapping departmental functions (C15) helps clarify roles and responsibilities, which minimizes redundancies and fosters more efficient workflows. Meanwhile, defining a clear value proposition (C17) ensures alignment in objectives across teams, improving focus and coherence in innovation efforts. Some challenges are recognized as important in both approaches. For example, C8 \"a culture of resistance to change\", ranked at 79% in the survey, aligns with its critical role in the network, where it impacts other key challenges such as C11 \"lack of motivation and empowerment\", C18 \"coordination issues\", and C21 \"innovation process absence\". Similarly,  
Figure 4: Ranking of challenges based on survey results.