Parkinson et al are right
If you are in government service, it is expected of you that you will manage your portion of the people's money in a safe and prudent manner. No innovation, no changes unless the outcome is known to be successful. If not, a tar-and-feathering is the result. So change is not in the works. CYA and don't make a new policy.
Now if the government entity is a money making (cash in exceeds cash out), money will be borrowed (a tax) by politicos to be used for a pet project. The politician as a master of the public's good knows that change in the industrial world will get the politician unemployed so again no innovation is likely.
Unions are large corporations with the membership being its customers who are also voters then supports the politician in the status quo. Again innovation suffers.
A private corporation risks the money of people that are willing to accept the risk. The private corporation innovates to maintain customers (or screams for governmental intervention) and has a viable means of determining its success (marginal revenue > marginal cost and marginal gain > average costs). This all being done with money freely chosen to be risked - no coercion present as opposed to a tax.
The net outcome of this being that governmental organization will suck up capital in order to fullfill its function of staying in power whereas a private must move quickly to keep the costs from exceeding revenues. Note this assumes that the user has free choice in product selection